m 


Workers  Library 

Melvin  Village 
New  Hampshire 


Presented  Ly 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


VIRGINIA'S  ATTITUDE 

TOWARD  SLAVERY 

AND  SECESSION 


VIRGINIA'S   ATTITUDE 

TOWARD 
SLAVERY  AND  SECESSION 


BY 

BEVERLEY  B.   MUNFORD 


HUMANITATEM  AMOREMC^UE   PATRIAE   COLITX 


NEW  EDITION 


LONGMANS,    GREEN,    AND     CO 

FOURTH  AVENUE  &  30TH  STREET,  NEW  YORK 
LONDON,  BOMBAY,  AND  CALCUTTA 

1910 


LIBRARY 


Copyright,  1909 

by 
BBVERLEY  B.  MUNFOED 


First  Edition,  October,  1909 
Second  Edition  revised,  May,  1910 


TO 
MY  WIFE 


PREFACE 

THIS  work  is  designed  as  a  contribution  to  the  volume 
of  information  from  which  the  historian  of  the  future  will 
be  able  to  prepare  an  impartial  and  comprehensive  narra 
tive  of  the  American  Civil  War,  or  to  speak  more  accurately 
— The  American  War  of  Secession. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  present  the  causes  which 
precipitated  the  secession  of  the  Cotton  States,  nor  the 
states  which  subsequently  adopted  the  same  policy,  except 
Virginia.  Even  in  regard  to  that  commonwealth  the 
effort  has  been  limited  to  the  consideration  of  two  features 
prominent  in  the  public  mind  as  constituting  the  most 
potent  factors  in  determining  her  action — namely,  devo 
tion  to  slavery  and  hostility  to  the  Union.  That  the 
people  of  Virginia  were  moved  to  secession  by  a  selfish 
desire  to  extend  or  maintain  the  institution  of  slavery, 
or  from  hostility  to  the  Union,  are  propositions  seemingly 
at  variance  with  their  whole  history  and  the  interests 
which  might  naturally  have  controlled  them  in  the  hour 
of  separation.  Yet  how  widespread  the  impression  and 
how  frequent  the  suggestion  from  the  pen  of  historian  and 
publicist  that  the  great  and  compelling  motives  which  led 
Virginia  to  secede  were  a  desire  to  extend  slavery  into 
the  territories  and  to  safeguard  the  institution  within  her 
own  borders,  coupled  with  a  spirit  of  hostility  to  the 
Union  and  the  ideals  of  liberty  proclaimed  by  its  founders. 
To  present  the  true  attitude  of  the  dominant  element  of 
the  Virginia  people  with  respect  to  these  subjects  is  the 
work  which  the  author  has  taken  in  hand. 

vii 


viii  PREFACE 

As  cognate  to  this  purpose  the  effort  has  been  made 
to  show  what  was  the  proximate  cause  which  influenced 
the  great  body  of  the  Virginia  people  in  the  hour  of  final 
decision.  There  were  unquestionably  many  and  widely 
severed  causes — some  remote  in  origin  and  some  imme 
diate  to  the  hour,  yet  it  may  be  safely  asserted  that  but 
for  the  adoption  by  the  Federal  Government  of  the  policy 
of  coercion  towards  the  Cotton  States,  Virginia  would 
not  have  seceded.  That  was  the  crucial  and  determining 
factor,  which  impelled  her  secession.  She  denied  the 
right  of  the  Federal  Government  to  defeat  by  force  of 
arms  the  aspiration  of  a  people  as  numerous  and  united 
as  those  of  the  Cotton  States  to  achieve  in  peace  their 
independence.  She  believed  that  such  a  course  and  the 
exercise  of  such  a  power  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  if  not  actually  beyond  the  scope  of  its  powers  as 
fixed  in  the  constitution,  were  clearly  repugnant  to  the 
ideals  of  the  Republic,  and  subversive  of  the  principles  for 
which  their  Fathers  had  fought  and  won  the  battles  of  the 
Revolution.  Upon  the  question,  shall  the  Cotton  States 
be  permitted  to  withdraw  in  peace,  or  shall  their  aspira 
tions  be  defeated  by  force  of  arms,  Virginia  assumed  no 
new  position.  She  simply  in  the  hour  of  danger  and 
sacrifice  held  faithful  to  the  principles  which  she  had  oft- 
times  declared  and  which  have  ever  found  sturdy  defenders 
in  every  part  of  the  Republic. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  volume  the  author  has  been 
the  grateful  recipient  of  the  labors  of  many  historians 
and  publicists,  accredited  citations  from  whose  works  will 
be  found  throughout  its  pages. 

In  addition,  he  desires  to  acknowledge  his  indebtedness 
to  the  following  gentlemen : 

First  and  foremost,  to  Dr.  Philip  Alexander  Bruce  of 


PREFACE  ix 

Virginia,  for  his  generous  sympathy  and  invaluable  assist 
ance,  with  respect  to  every  feature  of  the  book;  also  to 
Edward  M.  Shepard,  Esquire,  and  Reverend  Samuel  H. 
Bishop  of  New  York  and  to  Colonel  Archer  Anderson  and 
Henry  W.  Anderson,  Esquire,  of  Richmond,  for  their 
kindness  in  reading  his  manuscript  and  making  many 
helpful  suggestions. 

For  none  of  the  errors  of  the  book,  nor  for  any  expression 
of  opinion,  are  these  gentlemen  responsible. 

Thanks  are  due  and  tendered  to  Dr.  Herbert  Putnam, 
Librarian  of  Congress,  Dr.  H.  R.  Mcllwaine,  State  Librarian 
of  Virginia,  and  Mr.  W.  G.  Stanard,  Corresponding  Secretary 
of  the  Virginia  Historical  Society,  and  to  their  courteous 
assistants,  for  the  generous  use  accorded  the  author  of  the 
wealth  of  historical  data  in  the  custody  of  those  institutions. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  acknowledgments  are 
gratefully  made  to  a  great  company  of  librarians,  lawyers, 
antiquarians,  clerks  of  courts,  custodians  of  private  manu 
scripts  and  others  who  have  assisted  the  author  in  collecting 
from  widely  separated  sections  of  the  Union  the  mass  of 
information  from  which  he  has  drawn,  in  the  preparation 
of  this  work.  In  many  instances,  the  facts  so  kindly 
furnished  do  not  appear,  but  have  been  of  service  to  the 
author,  in  enabling  him  to  form  more  accurate  conclusions. 
The  willingness  exhibited  by  citizens  of  states,  other  than 
Virginia,  to  furnish  information  with  respect  to  the  subject 
under  consideration,  is  indicative  of  a  growing  desire 
throughout  the  Union  to  know  the  facts  and  appreciate 
the  viewpoint  of  our  once  separated  but  now  united  people. 
If  this  book,  in  presenting  the  attitude  of  Virginia,  shall 
contribute  to  this  result,  it  will  afford  the  author  the 
sincerest  gratification. 

Richmond,  Virginia,  June,  1909 


PREFACE  TO  SECOND  EDITION 

IN  presenting  this  —  the  second  edition  of  his  book  — 
to  the  public,  the  author  wishes  to  express  his  appreciation 
of  the  generous  reception  accorded  the  first  edition. 

The  reviews,  which  have  appeared  in  so  many  journals 
have  been  carefully  considered,  but,  so  far,  nothing  has 
seemed  to  call  for  any  change  in  the  statement  of  facts 
or  material  modification  of  conclusions,  as  set  forth  in 
the  first  edition.  Advantage,  however,  has  been  taken  of 
the  opportunity  to  correct  many  verbal  inaccuracies  in  the 
body  of  the  book,  as  well  as  errors  in  the  paging  of  the 
index.  With  these  exceptions,  the  book  is  reprinted  in 
its  original  form. 

Richmond,   Virginia,   1910. 


CONTENTS 

THE  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE 

Part  I 

Page 

VIRGINIA'S  ATTITUDE  TOWARD  SLAVERY  AND  SECESSION 
DEFINED 

I.    Introduction 1 

II.    Virginia — Slavery  and  Secession;  .        .        .        .10 

Part  1 1 

VIRGINIA  DID  NOT  SECEDE  IN  ORDER  TO  EXTEND  SLAVERY 
INTO  THE  TERRITORIES,  OR  TO  PREVENT  ITS  THREATENED 
DESTRUCTION  WITHIN  HER  OWN  BORDERS 

III.  Virginia's    Colonial    Record    with    Respect    to 

Slavery .15 

IV.  Virginia's  Statute  Abolishing  the  African  Slave 

Trade  and  Her  Part  in  Enacting  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  25 

V.    Slavery  and  the  Federal  Constitution — Virginia's 

Position 29 

VI.    The  Foreign  Slave  Trade— Virginia's  Efforts  to 

Abolish  It 33 

VII.     Some  Virginia  Statutes  with  Respect  to  Slavery    .    41 

VIII.     The  Movement  in  the  Virginia  Legislature  of  1832 

to  Abolish  Slavery  in  the  State  .        .        .        .45 

IX.  The  Northern  Abolitionists  and  Their  Reaction 
ary  Influence  upon  Anti-Slavery  Sentiment  in 
Virginia 51 

X.    Negro  Colonization — State  and  National        .        .    60 

XI.  Instances  of  Colonization  by  Individual  Slave 
holders  66 

xi 


Xll 


CONTENTS 


XII. 

XIII. 
XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 
XVII. 

XVIII. 

XIX. 

XX. 

XXI. 

XXII. 

XXIII. 

XXIV. 

XXV. 

XXVI. 
XXVII. 

XXVIII. 
XXIX. 


Emancipation  and  Colonization  —  Views  of  Jeffer 
son,  Clay  and  Lincoln        ..... 

Anti-Slavery  Sentiments  of  Prominent  Virginians. 

Anti-Slavery  Sentiments  of  Prominent  Virginians. 
Continued  ....... 


Page 

75 

82 

91 


Anti-Slavery  Sentiments  of  Prominent  Virginians. 
Concluded  .......  96 

Specimens  of  Deeds  and  Wills  Emancipating  Slaves  104 

Specimens  of  Deeds  and  Wills  Emancipating 
Slaves.  Concluded  ......  114 

The  Small  Number  of  Slaveholders  in  Virginia,  as 
Compared  with  Her  Whole  White  Population  .  125 

The  Injurious  Effects  of  Slavery  upon  the  Pros 
perity  of  Virginia  ......  128 

The  Custom  of  Buying  and  Selling  Slaves  —  Vir 
ginia's  Attitude  ......  139 

The  Custom  of  Buying  and  Selling  Slaves  —  Vir 
ginia's  Attitude.  Concluded  ....  147 

Small  Proportion  of  Slaveholders  among  Virginia 
Soldiers  ........  154 

Some  of  the  Almost  Insuperable  Difficulties  which 
Embarrassed  Every  Plan  of  Emancipation  .  159 

Some  of  the  Almost  Insuperable  Difficulties  which 
Embarrassed  Every  Plan  of  Emancipation.  Con 
tinued 


Some  of  the  Almost  Insuperable  Difficulties  which 
Embarrassed  Every  Plan  of  Emancipation. 
Concluded 


164 


175 


The  Status  of  the  Controversy  Regarding  Slav 
ery  at  the  Time  Virginia  Seceded  from  the  Union  185 

The  Status  of  the  Controversy  Regarding  Slav 
ery  at  the  Time  Virginia  Seceded  from  the 
Union.  Concluded  193 

The  Attitude  of  Certain  Northern  States       .        .  201 

The  Attitude  of  Certain  Northern  States.  Con 
cluded  .  .  206 


XXX. 

XXXI. 

XXXII. 

XXXIII. 


CONTENTS 

The  Abolitionists 

The  Abolitionists  and  Disunion 

The  Abolitionists  and  Disunion.     Concluded 


xin 
Page 
214 

217 
225 


The  Emancipation  Proclamations  and  the  Virginia 
People 230 


Part  III 

VIRGINIA  DID  NOT  SECEDE  FROM  A  WANTON  DESIRE  TO 
DESTROY  THE  UNION,  OR  FROM  HOSTILITY  TO  THE 
IDEALS  OF  ITS  FOUNDERS 


237 


XXXIV.    Virginia's  Part  in  the  Revolution 

XXXV.     Virginia's  Part  in  Making  the  Union  under  the 

Constitution       .......  242 

XXXVI.    Virginia's    Efforts    to     Promote     Reconciliation 

and  Union  in  1861 248 

XXXVII.  The  People  of  Virginia  Declare  for  Union       .         .  255 

Part  IV 

THE  ATTEMPT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  TO  COERCE 
THE  COTTON  STATES — THE  PROXIMATE  CAUSE  OF  VIR 
GINIA'S  SECESSION 

XXXVIII.  The  Coercion   of   the  Cotton  States— Virginia's 

Position 263 

XXXIX.     The    Contest    in   the    Virginia   Convention   for 

and  against  Secession 269 

XL.     The    Contest    in    the   Virginia    Convention   for 

and  against  Secession.     Concluded  .         .  277 

XLI.     The  Attempted  Reinforcement  of  Fort  Sumter 

and  its  Significance  .....  284 

XLII.     The  Attempt  to  Coerce  the  Cotton  States  Im 
pels  Virginia  to  Secede      .....  290 

XLIII.     Conclusion 301 

Bibliography 305 

Index  .  312 


PART  I 

VIRGINIA'S  ATTITUDE  TOWARD  SLAVERY 
AND  SECESSION  DEFINED 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  story  of  the  American  Civil  War  presents  a  subject 
fraught  with  interest,  not  destined  to  die  with  the  passing 
years.  Even  the  finality  of  the  verdict  then  rendered 
on  the  issues  joined  will  not  abate  the  desire  of  men  to 
fix  with  precision  the  political  and  ethical  questions  in 
volved  and  the  motives  which  impelled  the  participants 
in  that  deplorable  tragedy.  The  sword  may  determine 
the  boundaries  of  empire  or  the  political  destinies  of  a 
people,  but  the  great  assize  of  the  world's  thought  and 
conscience  tries  again  and  again  the  merits  of  controversies 
and  brings  victor  and  vanquished  to  the  bar  of  its  in 
creasingly  fair  and  discriminating  judgment. 

What  was  the  character  of  the  War?  Though  one  of 
the  greatest  wars  of  modern  times,  having  its  rise  and  fall 
before  the  eyes  of  all  the  world,  yet  men  are  to-day  in 
doubt  as  to  the  true  term  by  which  to  describe  it. 

Was  it  a  Civil  War?  Such  a  conception  omits  the  claim 
of  the  North  that  the  Federal  Government  as  such  fought 
to  maintain  its  constitutional  supremacy,  and  the  claim 
of  the  South  that  the  seceding  states  but  exercised  their 
constitutional  rights  in  seceding,  and  as  states  fought  to 
maintain  that  principle.  A  civil  war  betokens  one  people, 
in  the  same  country,  subjects  of  the  same  power,  at  war 
among  themselves.  Here,  though  afore-time  country 
men,  when  the  battle  was  joined,  there  were  two  rival 
governments,  and  the  territories  of  the  contending  parties 

1 


2  CHARACTER  OF  WAR 

were  distinguished,  not  by  shibboleths  and  banners,  but 
by  rivers  and  mountain  ranges.  It  was  a  sectional  rather 
than  a  community  war,  a  conflict  between  governments 
rather  than  between  citizens  of  the  same  government. 

Was  it  a  Rebellion?  Such  a  conflict  indicates  a  revolt 
of  citizens  or  subjects  against  their  acknowledged  sovereign. 
Whether  in  the  United  States  the  citizen  owed  allegiance 
to  the  Federal  Government  as  against  his  State  Govern 
ment  was  a  question  upon  which  men  had  divided  since 
the  birth  of  the  Republic.  The  men  of  the  North  responded 
to  the  call  of  the  sovereign  to  whose  allegiance  they  ac 
knowledged  fealty — the  men  of  the  South  did  the  same. 
It  was  a  battle  between  rival  conceptions  of  sovereignty 
rather  than  one  between  a  sovereign  and  its  acknowledged 
citizens. 

Was  it  a  Revolution?  A  revolution  is  a  successful 
movement  of  citizens  or  subjects  against  their  sovereign. 
Here  the  identity  of  the  Sovereign  was  in  dispute,  and  the 
effort,  though  of  unexampled  magnitude,  was  unsuccess 
ful.  In  addition  the  parties  to  the  conflict  held  irrecon 
cilable  conceptions  as  to  what  constituted  the  right  of 
revolution — one  insisting  that  it  was  a  God-given  right 
inherent  in  any  people  sufficiently  numerous  to  maintain 
a  National  existence;  the  other,  that  it  was  a  mere  power 
to  strike,  dependent  upon  success  to  prove  the  legitimacy 
of  the  claim. 

The  parties  to  the  Conflict  were  not  rival  nations,  but 
compatriots  of  the  same  flag;  joint  inheritors  of  the  English 
Common  Law  and  the  ideals  of  liberty  consecrated  by 
centuries  of  heroic  struggle;  descendants  of  an  ancestry 
knit  in  political  sympathy  by  their  successful  battle  for 
independence  from  the  Mother  Country,  and  the  achieve 
ments  by  which  they  made  their  new-born  nation  great; 


PARTIES  TO  CONFLICT  3 

children  of  Puritan  and  Cavalier,  Quaker  and  Hugue 
not;  Dutchman  and  Catholic-Frenchman;  men  of  strong 
individual  and  community  traits,  accustomed  to  rule  and 
untutored  in  the  art  of  surrender. 

The  causes  of  the  War  were  deep-seated  and  complex. 
They  were  Old- World  antagonisms,  religious  and  political, 
antedating,  and  yet  surviving,  the  settlements  at  Jamestown 
and  Plymouth  Rock,  New  Amsterdam,  and  New  Orleans; — 

The  early  development  in  the  two  great  divisions  of  the 
country,  of  diverse  economic  conditions — a  land  of  small 
farms  and  multiplied  industrial  activities  confronting  one 
of  large  plantations  and  agricultural  supremacy; — 

The  Protective  Tariff,  at  first  enacted  to  secure  for 
American  manufactures  a  chance  to  compete  successfully 
with  those  of  the  Old  World,  but,  in  its  results,  a  burden 
some  system,  under  which  the  agriculturists  of  the  South 
paid  onerous  tribute  to  the  manufacturers  of  the  North; — 

Slavery — an  institution  which  specialized  more  and 
more  the  interests  of  the  South  in  the  great  exporting 
staples  of  cotton,  rice  and  tobacco,  driving  manufactures 
and  mining  into  the  more  hospitable  regions  of  the  North;— 
an  institution  whose  life  or  death  was  within  the  exclusive 
power  of  the  separate  states  where  it  was  legalized,  and 
yet  the  manifold  incidents  of  whose  existence  were  the 
subject  of  frequent  National  legislation,  and  hence  ever 
recurring  occasions  of  sectional  strife; — an  institution 
which  quickened  in  time  among  the  people  of  the  non- 
slaveholding  states  the  conviction  that  it  was  a  sin,  with 
the  consequent  charge  that  all  responsible  for  its  existence 
were  parties  to  a  crime,  thus  arousing  the  bitter  resentment 
of  devout  men  in  the  slaveholding  states,  who,  protesting 
their  innocence  of  wrong,  challenged  the  right  of  their 
Northern  brethren  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  them; — 


4  CAUSES  OF  WAR 

The  Annexation  of  Texas:  A  new  cause  and  occasion 
for  sectional  jealousy,  precipitating  the  war  with  Mexico, 
and  bringing  additional  territory  into  the  Union  with  fresh 
disputes  over  the  powers  of  Congress  in  regard  thereto; — 

The  Immense  Foreign  Immigration  into  the  North  and 
West; — thus  developing  in  those  sections  the  strongest 
sentiments  of  Nationalism,  while  the  South,  unaffected 
by  any  such  forces,  adhered  to  the  early  ideals  of  state 
pride  and  state  supremacy; — 

State  Sovereignty  versus  National  Supremacy; — the 
first,  the  shield  behind  which  aggrieved  minorities  sought 
to  curb  arrogant  majorities  and  safeguard  the  rights 
and  interests  of  community  life;  the  second,  the  ideal 
by  which  the  preservation  of  the  Union  was  to  be 
assured  and  its  dignity  and  power  at  home  and  abroad 
vindicated; — 

The  Missouri  Compromise — its  enactment  and  repeal, 
the  controversies  as  to  the  power  of  Congress  to  prohibit 
slaveholders  from  migrating  with  their  slaves  into  the 
territories,  the  enactment  by  Congress  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  of  1850  and  the  attitude  of  certain  Northern 
States  in  attempting  to  defeat  its  execution,  the  Under 
ground  Railroad,  the  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  the 
armed  conflicts  in  Kansas,  the  John  Brown  Raid  and  the 
sympathy  evinced  at  the  North  for  the  man  and  his  venture; 
and  finally : 

The  asserted  right  of  the  Cotton  States  to  withdraw 
from  the  Union,  and  the  declared  purpose  of  the  Federal 
Government  to  defeat  their  aspiration  by  force  of  arms. 

Add  to  all  the  foregoing  the  vision  of  mighty  armies 
struggling  for  mastery,  the  terrors  and  miseries  of  war — 
contrasted  with  the  heroism  and  devotion  which  it  aroused, 
and  there  results  a  combination  of  causes  which  will 


CAUSES  OF  WAR  5 

continue  to  make  their  compelling  appeal  to  the  hearts 
and  imaginations  of  men. 

If  the  causes  of  the  war  were  manifold  and  perplexing, 
the  exact  object  for  which  each  of  the  contending  parties 
did  battle  is  only  less  difficult  of  precise  definition.  A 
brief  consideration  of  some  of  the  many  forms  in  which 
the  popular  voice  has  sought  to  express  the  conception 
will  serve  to  illustrate  the  truth  of  this  suggestion. 

"The  North  fought  to  preserve  the  Union — the  South, 
to  destroy  it." 

That  one  great  element  of  the  Northern  people  took  up 
arms  at  the  call  of  the  Federal  Government  to  prevent 
a  dismemberment  of  the  Union  is  undoubtedly  true.  That 
another  element  regarded  the  maintenance  of  the  Union 
under  the  existing  constitution  as  unworthy  of  effort  is 
equally  true.  The  first  went  forth  at  the  earliest  call  to 
preserve  the  Union  under  the  old  constitution;  the  second 
came  later  to  the  battle  to  fight  for  a  Union  with  a  con 
stitution  which  should  decree  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
That  the  Southern  people  sought  to  establish  the  inde 
pendence  of  their  new  Confederacy  and  to  that  extent  a 
dismemberment  of  the  Union  is  true,  but  that  they  desired 
the  destruction  of  the  Union  and  the  principles  of  liberty 
and  law  which  its  establishment  was  designed  to  assure 
are  conclusions  not  easily  deducible  from  their  aspirations 
or  necessities. 

"The  North  fought  for  empire,  the  South  for  inde 
pendence." 

That  the  North  fought  to  keep  within  the  limits  of  the 
Union  the  domain  stretching  from  the  Potomac  to  the 
Rio  Grande  is  true,  but  that  the  great  mass  of  her  people 
were  actuated  by  a  desire  to  hold  the  land  as  tributary 
and  its  people  as  subjects  is  not  true.  The  splendid  ideal 


6  THE  ISSUES   INVOLVED 

of  a  Republic,  stretching  from  ocean  to  ocean,  and  securing 
to  its  growing  millions  the  dual  blessings  which  spring 
from  National  integrity  and  home  rule,  we  may  well  believe 
was  ever  before  them.  That  one  great  element  of  the 
Southern  people  fought  for  independence  and  all  the 
inspiring  ideals  which  the  term  implies  is  true,  though  it 
is  equally  true  that  joined  with  them  in  the  battle  were 
states  the  dominant  elements  of  whose  people  cherished 
no  primal  desire  for  separation  from  the  Union,  but  resisted 
the  authorities  of  the  latter  because  of  their  convictions 
that  its  policy  of  coercion  was  illegal  and  destructive  of 
the  principle  upon  which  the  Republic  had  been  founded. 

"The  North  fought  to  destroy  slavery;  the  South,  to 
extend  and  maintain  it." 

That  slavery  was  the  most  potent  factor  in  developing 
the  conditions  which  finally  precipitated  war  is  true. 
That  the  two  parties  to  the  conflict  joined  battle  upon  the 
issue  of  its  maintenance  or  destruction  seems  inconsistent 
with  their  solemnly  declared  purposes  and  promises,  made 
at  the  time.  President  Lincoln  at  his  inauguration  pro 
claimed:  "I  have  no  purpose  directly  or  indirectly  to 
interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  states  where 
it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I 
have  no  inclination  to  do  so."  This  pledge  of  the  President 
was  but  a  reaffirmation  of  the  platform  of  his  party,  and 
both  were,  in  turn,  confirmed  by  the  declaration  of  Con 
gress  that  the  war  was  fought,  "to  defend  and  maintain 
the  supremacy  of  the  constitution  and  to  preserve  the 
Union  with  all  the  dignity,  equality  and  rights  of  the 
several  states  unimpaired." 

President  Davis  presented  the  attitude  of  his  people 
and  government  when  he  declared:  "All  we  ask  is  to  be 
let  alone — that  those  who  never  held  power  over  us  shall 


THE  ISSUES  INVOLVED  7 

not  now  attempt  our  subjugation  by  arms."  And  after 
three  years  of  desperate  war,  he  declared  to  the  repre 
sentatives  of  President  Lincoln: — 

"We  are  not  fighting  for  slavery.  We  are  fighting  for 
independence.  .  .  .  Say  to  Mr.  Lincoln  for  me  that  I  shall 
at  any  time  be  pleased  to  receive  proposals  for  peace,  on  the 
basis  of  our  independence.  It  will  be  useless  to  approach 
me  with  any  other."1 

That  the  people  of  America  in  the  nineteenth  century 
of  the  Christian  era  should  have  resorted  to  war  in  order 
to  settle  questions  of  constitutional  and  moral  right  must 
forever  constitute  an  impeachment  of  the  capacity  for  self- 
government  and  the  ethical  standards  of  the  men  responsi 
ble  for  its  occurrence. 

The  charge  that  the  people  of  twenty-three  states  in  four 
of  which  slavery  was  legalized  arose  in  arms  against  their 
fellow-citizens  of  the  remaining  eleven  and,  despite  the 
constitutional  safeguards  with  which  the  institution  in  the 
latter  states  was  confessedly  surrounded,  invaded  their 
land,  burnt  thousands  of  their  homes  and  killed  tens  of 
thousands  of  their  citizens  in  a  desperate  determination 
to  destroy  slavery,  is  as  compromising  to  American  char 
acter  as  the  counter  accusation  that  the  people  of  eleven 
states,  with  no  existing  menace  to  their  constitutional 
rights  in  regard  to  slavery,  resorted  to  secession  and 
aggressive  war  in  order  to  secure  new  guarantees  for  the 
safety  of  the  institution.  Charges  so  dishonoring  to  the 
American  people  should  not  be  made  and  above  all  should 
not  be  accepted  as  true — unless  compelled  by  the  inexorable 
facts  of  history. 

"The  South  fought  for  States'   Rights— Home  Rule; 
the  North,  for  Federal  rights — National  Supremacy." 
^History  of  the  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  IV,  p.  515. 


8  STATE  RIGHTS  vs.   FEDERAL  RIGHTS 

In  the  large  measure  of  truth  contained  in  this  declara 
tion  lay  the  profound  tragedy  of  the  Civil  War — a  battle 
for  the  supremacy  of  one  of  two  ideals,  thus  brought  into 
antagonism,  upon  the  maintenance  of  both  of  which,  in 
their  true  proportions,  depended  so  largely  the  success  of 
the  unique  experiment  in  government  established  by  the 
Fathers.  In  this  union  of  states  how  were  the  rights  of 
personal  liberty  and  community  life  to  be  harmonized 
with  the  National  ideals  and  powers  essential  to  its  preser 
vation?  Liberty  and  law — the  consent  of  the  governed 
and  the  integrity  of  the  Government — how  were  these 
great  ends  to  be  assured?  From  the  birth  of  the  Republic, 
there  were  views  radically  divergent  as  to  the  character 
and  powers  of  the  government  then  created;  and  there 
were  aspirations  of  devoutest  patriotism  alike  yearning 
for  the  triumphs  of  liberty  and  law,  though  seeking  these 
ideals  by  policies  almost  irreconcilable.  Thus,  upon  the 
fair  prospect  of  the  new  Republic,  there  lowered  from  its 
natal  hour  forebodings  of  strife  and  separation.  With 
these  warring  ideals,  intensified  by  divergent  economic 
and  political  interests,  there  arose  the  forces  which  drove 
the  shuttle  of  discord  back  and  forth  through  the  web  and 
woof  of  the  nation's  life,  and  wrought  the  forbidding 
pattern  of  sectionalism,  division  and  hate.  What  were 
the  causes — what  the  issues — of  that  "strange  and  most 
unnatural"  war?  What  were  the  motives  which  impelled 
the  people  of  the  South,  utterly  unprepared  for  battle, 
to  risk  the  unequal  contest,  and  never  to  desist  until  the 
hand  of  destruction  had  paralyzed  the  very  heart  of  effort? 
What  were  the  motives  which  impelled  the  people  of  the 
North  to  give  without  stint  their  wealth  of  blood  and 
treasure;  to  marshal  armies  more  numerous  than  those 
with  which  Napoleon  confronted  a  world  in  arms,  and, 


STATE  RIGHTS  vs.   FEDERAL  RIGHTS  9 

for  four  years,  to  hurl  them  against  the  homes  of  their 
brethren? 

Analysis  is  the  foe  of  confusion  and  the  friend  of  the 
light.  Motives  and  methods,  grouped  and  commingled, 
present  difficulties  of  right  appreciation  which  ofttimes 
vanish  if  separated  into  their  component  parts. 

The  commonwealth  of  Virginia  bore  a  not  inconspicuous 
part  in  the  Civil  War.  It  will  subserve  the  cause  of  truth 
and  assist  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  complex  condi 
tions  referred  to,  if  we  endeavor  to  portray  the  motives 
which  impelled  the  people  of  this  one  state  during  those 
fateful  days  of  1860-61. 


II 

VIRGINIA:  SLAVERY  AND  SECESSION 

IT  is  not  questioned  that  among  the  people  of  Virginia 
were  men  of  widely  divergent  views;  Secessionists  of  the 
most  ultra  type,  insisting  on  the  state's  right  to  secede, 
and  demanding  her  immediate  withdrawal  from  the 
Union;  anti-secessionists  of  the  strongest  mould,  denying 
the  right  of  secession  and  protesting  against  its  attempted 
exercise;  Unionists  who  admitted  the  right  in  the  state, 
as  a  desperate  measure  of  relief,  but  denying  that  any 
such  occasion  had  arisen;  advocates  of  slavery  who  regarded 
the  institution  as  approved  of  Heaven, — a  blessing  to 
the  blacks,  and  essential  to  the  safety  of  the  whites; 
apostles  of  emancipation  who  denounced  slavery  and 
called  for  its  abolition;  men  who  would  make  Virginia 
"neutral  territory"  between  the  hostile  sections,  and 
those  who  would  fight  for  her  rights,  but  "fight  within 
the  Union." 

None  of  these  elements,  separately,  spoke  the  senti 
ments  of  the  majority,  nor  represented  the  controlling 
force  in  her  citizenship.  We  shall  accept  as  the  true 
expression  of  the  dominant  element  the  returns  from 
the  ballot  box,  the  enactments  of  her  legislative  and 
constitutional  assemblies,  and  the  deliverances  of  her 
great  sons.  Tried  by  these  criteria,  it  may  be  truthfully 
declared  that  the  institution  of  slavery  was  regarded  with 
disfavor  by  a  majority  of  her  people;  that  they  tolerated 
its  existence  as  a  modus  vivendi  to  meet  the  dangers  and 

10 


VIRGINIA'S  ATTITUDE  11 

difficulties  of  the  hour,  but  looking  forward  to  the  time 
when  the  increase  of  her  white  population  from  within 
and  without,  and  the  decrease  of  her  blacks  by  emigration 
and  colonization  would  render  feasible  its  abolition,  with 
a  maximum  of  benefit  to  the  slaves  and  their  owners, 
and  a  minimum  of  danger  to  society  and  the  state;  that 
while  cherishing  an  almost  romantic  love  for  their  common 
wealth,  they  felt  genuine  loyalty  to  the  Union,  and  con 
templated  with  profound  sorrow  the  suggested  with 
drawal  therefrom  of  any  group  of  states;  and,  finally, 
that  they  carried  their  state  out  of  the  Union  and  into 
the  Southern  Confederacy  because  the  authorities  of  the 
former  sought  by  force  of  arms  to  defeat  the  latter  in 
their  efforts  to  achieve  independence,  and  demanded  of 
Virginia  her  quota  of  men  to  accomplish  the  deed. 

Secession  they  deplored  because  it  broke  the  married  calm 
of  a  union  which  its  makers  fondly  hoped  would  endure 
forever,  but  war  upon  the  states  seeking  independence 
they  also  deplored,  because  subversive  of  the  principles 
upon  which  the  Union  was  founded.  Could  the  Federal 
Government  deny  to  six  millions  of  people  the  boon  of 
independence  which  they  were  seeking  by  orderly  and 
peaceful  methods,  and  still  remain  true  to  the  principles 
of  the  great  Declaration,  to  maintain  which  the  Fathers 
of  the  Republic  had  fought  and  won  the  battles  of  the 
Revolution?  Have  people  the  right  to  determine  for 
themselves  their  political  destiny?  Are  the  just  powers 
of  governments  to  be  measured  by  the  consent  of  the 
governed?  These  were  the  questions  which,  carrying 
their  own  answers,  impelled. the  Virginian  opponents  of 
coercion  in  1861  to  stand,  as  they  believed,  for  the  political 
and  ethical  principles  which  the  Flag  symbolized,  rather 
than  for  the  Flag  itself. 


12  SLAVERY  AND  SECESSION 

That  Virginia  revered  the  institution  of  slavery,  and 
from  selfish  motives  fought  to  make  more  sure  the  muni 
ments  of  its  existence;  that  she  desired  the  destruction 
of  the  Union,  and  the  degenerate  abandonment  of  the 
inspiring  dreams  of  liberty  and  progress,  which  it  was 
designed  to  assure, — are  propositions  unthinkable  to 
men  acquainted  with  her  history  and  the  genius  and  as 
pirations  of  her  people.  It  was  for  no  such  cause  that  she 
gave  her  sons  to  the  sword,  and  her  bosom  as  the  battle 
ground  for  the  fiercest  war  of  modern  times.  Her  people 
fought  because  they  felt  the  occasion  made  its  imperious 
demand  upon  their  duty  and  their  honor.  Virginia  had 
persistently  declared  that  the  right  asserted  by  the  Cotton 
States  was  God-given  and  inalienable.  Thus  her  sense 
of  honor,  as  well  as  the  imperilled  right  of  self-government, 
impelled  her  to  battle. 

Twenty  years  after  the  surrender  at  Appomattox  Lord 
Wolseley  wrote:  "The  Right  of  Self-Government  which 
Washington  won,  and  for  which  Lee  fought,  was  no  longer 
to  be  a  watchword  to  stir  men's  blood  in  the  United 
States."1 

We  need  not  accept  the  conclusion  of  this  distinguished 
soldier  that  the  cause  of  self-government  no  longer  com 
mands  the  allegiance  of  the  American  people,  in  order  to 
believe  that  amid  the  trials  and  conflicts  of  the  Civil  War 
Virginia  stood  faithful  for  the  vindication  of  that  great 
principle. 

1R.  E.  Lee,  Wolseley,  p.  51. 


PART  II 

VIRGINIA  DID  NOT  SECEDE  IN  ORDER  TO  EX 
TEND   SLAVERY  INTO  THE  TERRITORIES, 
OR  TO   PREVENT  ITS  THREATENED 
DESTRUCTION  WITHIN  HER 
OWN  BORDERS 


m 

VIRGINIA'S  COLONIAL  RECORD  WITH  RESPECT  TO  SLAVERY 

PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  in  his  inaugural  address  declared: — 
"One  section  of  our  country  believes  slavery  is  right  and 
ought  to  be  extended,  while  the  other  believes  slavery  is 
wrong  and  ought  not  to  be  extended.  This  is  the  only 
substantial  dispute." 

Other  voices  proclaimed  that  there  existed  an  "irre 
pressible  conflict"  between  the  North  and  the  South  in 
which  the  abolition  or  maintenance  of  slavery  was  the  gage 
of  battle.  The  two  assertions  may  be  combined  and  the 
question  considered  whether  Virginia  seceded  either  to 
extend  slavery  into  the  territories  or  to  perpetuate  the 
institution  within  her  borders. 

In  considering  these  questions  it  will  be  well  to  review 
Virginia's  record  with  respect  to  slavery  both  during  the 
period  of  her  existence  as  a  colony  and  her  career  as  a 
state; 

To  collate  the  sentiments  of  her  great  sons  antagonistic 
to  the  institution; 

To  show  the  small  number  of  her  citizens  holding  slaves 
as  compared  with  the  great  company  of  those  who  pos 
sessed  no  such  interest; 

To  note  the  injurious  effects  upon  her  prosperity  result 
ing  from  the  presence  of  the  institution; 

To  summarize  what  were  considered  the  almost  in 
superable  difficulties  which  embarrassed  every  plan  of 
emancipation — difficulties  that  were  augmented  and  in- 

15 


16  SLAVERY  IN  VIRGINIA 

tensified  by  the  bitterness  and  partizanship  with  which, 
during  the  three  decades  immediately  preceding  the  Civil 
War,  the  subject  had  become  invested; 

To  present  the  situation  with  respect  to  the  controversy 
at  the  time  Virginia  seceded  from  the  Union;  and  finally, 

To  consider  the  effects,  if  any,  upon  her  position,  of 
President  Lincoln's  Proclamations  of  Emancipation  issued 
subsequent  thereto. 

African  slaves  were  first  brought  to  Virginia  in  1619  by 
a  Dutch  vessel.  George  W.  Williams,  the  negro  historian 
of  his  race  in  America,  says,  "It  is  due  to  the  Virginia 
colony  to  say  that  the  slaves  were  forced  upon  them."1 

Though  slaves  were  thus  introduced  as  early  as  1619, 
it  was  not  until  1661  that  the  institution  of  slavery  was 
recognized  in  Virginia  by  statute  law.2 

For  a  long  period  after  their  first  introduction,  very 
few  slaves  were  imported.  At  the  end  of  the  first  half- 
century  there  were  only  some  two  thousand,  and  as  late 
as  the  year  1715  they  numbered  only  about  twenty-five 
thousand.  In  the  sixty  years,  however,  immediately 
preceding  the  Revolution,  they  came  in  ever-increasing 
numbers,  so  that  at  the  latter  date  they  almost  equalled 
the  white  population  of  the  colony.8 

With  the  great  increase  of  this  element  in  the  population, 
the  colonists  were  quick  to  realize  their  danger*  and 
numerous  acts  were  passed  by  the  Colonial  Legislature 
designed  to  lessen,  if  not  actually  to  stop,  further  im- 

*History  of  the  Negro  Race  in  America,  Williams,  Vol.  1,  p.  119. 

^History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  Ballagh,  p.  34. 

^History  of  the  Negro  Race  in  America,  Williams,  Vol.  1,  p.  133. 

4 A  letter  from  the  celebrated  Colonel  William  Byrd  of  "West- 
over"  to  Lord  Egmont,  under  date  of  July  12,  1736,  will  serve  to 
illustrate  this  fact.  Colonel  Byrd  writes,  "Your  Lord's  opinion 
concerning  Rum  and  Negroes  is  certainly  very  just,  and  your 


VIRGINIA'S  COLONIAL  RECORD  17 

portations.  Alluding  to  these  efforts  of  the  Virginia 
people,  Mr.  Bancroft  says: 

"Again  and  again  they  had  passed  laws  restraining  the 
importation  of  negroes  from  Africa,  but  their  laws  were 
disallowed.  How  to  prevent  them  from  protecting  them 
selves  against  the  increase  of  the  overwhelming  evil  was 
debated  by  the  King  in  Council;  and  on  the  10th  of  Decem 
ber,  1770,  he  issued  an  instruction  under  his  own  hand 
commanding  the  Governor  '  upon  pain  of  the  highest  dis 
pleasure,  to  assent  to  no  law  by  which  the  importation  of 
slaves  should  be  in  any  respect  prohibited  or  obstructed.'"1 

Edmund  Burke,  in  his  speech  on  conciliating  America, 
in  response  to  the  suggestion  that  the  slaves  might  be 
freed  and  used  against  the  colonies,  said, 

"  Dull  as  all  men  are  from  slavery,  must  they  not  a  little 
suspect  the  offer  of  freedom  from  the  very  nation  which 

excluding  both  of  them  from  your  c"6lony  of  Georgia  will  be  very 
happy.  .  .  . 

I  wish,  my  Lord,  we  could  be  blessed  with  the  same  prohibition. 
They  import  so  many  negroes  here  that  I  fear  this  colony  will  some 
time  or  other  be  confirmed  by  the  name  of  New  Guinea.  I  am 
sensible  of  the  many  bad  consequences  of  multiplying  the  Ethi 
opians  amongst  us.  They  blow  up  the  pride  and  ruin  the  Industry 
of  our  White  People,  who  seeing  a  Rank  of  poor  creatures  below 
them,  detest  work  for  fear  it  should  make  them  look  like  slaves. 
Then  that  poverty  which  will  ever  attend  upon  Idleness  disposes 
them  as  much  to  pilfer  as  it  does  the  Portuguese.  .  .  . 

But  these  private  mischiefs  are  nothing  if  compared  to  the 
publick  danger.  It  were  therefore  worth  the  consideration  of  a 
British  Parliament,  my  Lord,  to  put  an  end  to  this  unchristian 
traffick  of  making  merchandise  of  our  Fellow  Creatures.  At  least, 
the  further  importation  of  them  into  our  Colony  should  be  pro 
hibited  lest  they  prove  as  troublesome  and  dangerous  elsewhere 
as  they  have  been  lately  in  Jamaica.  ...  All  these  matters 
duly  considered,  I  wonder  the  Legislature  will  Indulge  a  few 
ravenous  traders  to  the  danger  of  the  Publick  Safety."  (From 
Unpublished  Byrd  Manuscripts  at  Lower  Brandon,  Va.) 

History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  410. 


18  EFFORTS  TO  EXCLUDE  SLAVES 

had  sold  them  to  their  present  masters — from  that  nation, 
one  of  whose  causes  of  quarrel  with  those  masters  is 
their  refusal  to  deal  any  more  in  that  inhuman  traffic. 
An  offer  of  freedom  from  England  would  come  rather 
oddly,  shipped  to  them  in  an  African  vessel,  which  is 
refused  an  entry  into  the  ports  of  Virginia  or  Carolina,  with  a 
cargo  of  three  hundred  Angola  Negroes."1 

In  addition  to  legislative  enactments,  appeals  were 
addressed  directly  to  the  throne.  But  the  great  per 
sonages  interested  in  the  slave  trade  proved  more  in 
fluential  with  the  King  than  the  prayers  of  his  imperilled 
people.  There  is  something  at  once  pathetic  and  pro 
phetic  in  the  appeals  made  by  these  Virginians  to  their 
sovereign  against  the  slave  trade.  The  petition  presented 
by  the  House  of  Burgesses  in  1772  recites: 

"We  implore  your  Majesty's  paternal  assistance  in  avert 
ing  a  calamity  of  a  most  alarming  nature.  The  im 
portation  of  slaves  into  the  colonies  from  the  coast  of 
Africa  hath  long  been  considered  as  a  trade  of  great  in 
humanity,  and  under  its  present  encouragement  we  have 
too  much  reason  to  fear  will  endanger  the  very  existence 
of  your  Majesty's  American  dominions.  We  are  sensible 
that  some  of  your  Majesty's  subjects  may  reap  emolu 
ments  from  this  sort  of  traffic,  but  when  we  consider  that 
it  greatly  retards  the  settlement  of  the  colonies  with  more 
useful  inhabitants  and  may  in  time  have  the  most  destruc 
tive  influence,  we  presume  to  hope  that  the  interests  of 
a  few  will  be  disregarded  when  placed  in  competition 
with  the  security  and  happiness  of  such  numbers  of  your 
Majesty's  dutiful  and  loyal  subjects.  We,  therefore,  be 
seech  your  Majesty  to  remove  all  these  restraints  on  your 
Majesty's  Governor  in  this  colony  which  inhibits  their 
assenting  to  such  laws  as  might  check  so  pernicious  a 
consequence."2 

1  Burke's  Works,  Little,  Brown  &  Co.'s.  Ed.,  Vol.  II,  p.  135. 

2  Journal  of  House  of  Burgesses,  p.  131,  and  Tucker's  Black- 
stone,  appendix,  note  H.  Vol.  II,  p.  351. 


ORIGINAL  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE     19 

This  petition  was  reported  from  a  Committee  of  the 
House  which  included  Edmund  Pendleton,  Richard  Henry 
Lee,  Benjamin  Harrison  and  others  of  equal  prominence.1 

But  the  King  and  Ministers  continued  to  turn  deaf 
ears  and  except  with  respect  to  more  moderate  measures 
the  Royal  Veto  was  interposed  to  annul  all  anti-slavery 
laws. 

Chief  among  the  causes  which  aroused  the  opposition 
of  the  Virginia  colonists  and  placed  them  in  the  forefront 
of  the  Revolution  was  the  course  of  the  King  with  respect 
to  this  momentous  subject.  When  Thomas  Jefferson 
came  to  write  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  to 
epitomize  the  grounds  of  indictment  which  the  colonists 
presented  against  the  British  King,  it  was  the  latter's 
veto  of  the  laws  passed  by  Virginia  to  suppress  the  slave 
trade,  and  the  active  aid  lent  by  his  Government  to  force 
the  captives  of  Africa  upon  his  defenseless  subjects,  that 
evoked  the  fiercest  arraignment  in  that  historic  document. 
Mr.  Jefferson  declared: 

"  George  the  Third  has  waged  cruel  war  against  humanity 
itself,  violating  its  most  sacred  rights  of  life  and  liberty, 
in  the  persons  of  a  distant  people  who  never  offended 
him;  captivating  and  carrying  them  into  slavery  in  another 
hemisphere,  or  to  incur  a  miserable  death  in  their  trans 
portation  thither.  This  piratical  warfare,  the  opprobrium 
of  infidel  powers,  is  the  warfare  of  the  Christian  King  of 
Great  Britain.  Determined  to  keep  open  a  market  where 
men  should  be  bought  and  sold,  he  has  prostituted  his 
negative  for  suppressing  every  legislative  attempt  to 
prohibit,  or  to  restrain,  this  execrable  commerce.  And 
that  this  assemblage  of  horrors  might  want  no  fact  of  dis 
tinguished  dye,  he  is  now  exciting  these  very  people  to 
rise  in  arms  among  us,  and  to  purchase  that  liberty  of 

1  Defense  of  Virginia,  Dabney,  p.  48. 


20          REASONS  FOR  AMENDING  DECLARATION 

which  he  has  deprived  them,  by  murdering  the  people  on 
whom  he  obtruded  them;  thus  paying  off  former  crimes 
committed  against  the  liberties  of  one  people  with  crimes 
which  he  urges  them  to  commit  against  the  lives  of 
another."1 

"These  words,"  says  Mr.  Bancroft,  "expressed  pre 
cisely  what  had  happened  in  Virginia." 

That  this  portion  of  the  Declaration  was  stricken  out  by 
Congress  before  its  formal  presentation  to  the  world  does 
not  negative  the  fact  that,  in  thus  declaring,  Mr.  Jefferson 
proclaimed  the  sentiments  of  his  native  state.  It  was 
ominous  of  her  future  experience  with  respect  to  this 
baneful  subject,  that  the  voice  of  Virginia  was  then  silenced 
in  deference  to  the  states  of  the  far  South  and  certain  of 
their  Northern  sisters.  Mr.  Jefferson  has  left  upon  record 
that  this  clause  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
stricken  out: 

"In  compliance  to  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  who 
had  never  attempted  to  restrain  the  importation  of  slaves, 
and  who,  on  the  contrary,  still  wished  to  continue  it. 
Our  Northern  brethren  also,  I  believe,  felt  a  little  tender 
under  those  censures,  for  though  their  people  have  very 
few  slaves,  yet  they  had  been  pretty  considerable  carriers 
of  them  to  others."2 

The  biographers  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay, 
say: 

"The  objections  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  sufficed 
to  cause  the  erasure  and  suppression  of  the  obnoxious 
paragraph.  Nor  were  the  Northern  States  guiltless; 
Newport  was  yet  a  great  slave  mart,  and  the  commerce  of 

lHistory  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  IV,  p.  445. 
^Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  P.  L.  Ford,  Vol.  I,  p.  28 


VIRGINIA'S  ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS,   1774     21 

New  England  drew  more  advantages  from  the  traffic  than 
did  the  agriculture  of  the  South."1 

But  the  position  of  Virginia  with  respect  to  slavery  and 
the  vetoes  of  George  III  and  the  slave  trade  was  not  left 
to  be  determined  by  unofficial  utterances  though  coming 
from  one  of  her  greatest  sons.  As  early  as  1774  her  people 
registered  their  sentiments  in  the  most  varied  and  em 
phatic  forms.  Mass  meetings  in  many  of  the  counties 
adopted  resolutions,  the  purport  and  tenor  of  which  may 
be  gathered  from  those  of  Fairfax  County, — "  We  take  the 
opportunity  of  declaring  our  most  earnest  wishes  to  see 
an  entire  stop  forever  put  to  such  a  wicked,  cruel  and 
unnatural  trade."2 

In  August,  1774,  the  Virginia  Colonial  Convention 
resolved:  "We  will  neither  ourselves  import,  nor  pur 
chase  any  slave  or  slaves  imported  by  any  other  person, 
after  the  first  day  of  November,  next,  either  from  Africa, 
the  West  Indies  or  any  other  place."3 

On  the  fifth  of  September,  1774,  when  the  Continental 
Congress  assembled  for  the  first  time,  her  delegates  in  that 
body  submitted  the  memorial  known  in  history  as,  "A 
Summary  View  of  the  Rights  of  British  America,"  in 
which  the  course  of  George  III  was  arraigned  and  the 
sentiments  of  Virginia  in  regard  to  the  slave  trade  declared 
as  follows: 

"For  the  most  trifling  reasons,  and  sometimes  for  no 
conceivable  reason  at  all,  His  Majesty  has  rejected  laws  of 
the  most  salutary  tendency.  The  abolition  of  domestic 
slavery  is  the  great  object  of  desire  in  those  colonies, 
where  it  was,  unhappily,  introduced  in  their  infant  state. 

1  Abraham  Lincoln,  A  History,  Nicolay  &  Hay,  Vol.  I,  p.  314. 
Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  DuBois,  p.  43. 
*Idem,  p.  43. 


22  VIRGINIA'S  FIRST  CONSTITUTION 

But,  previous  to  the  enfranchisement  of  the  slaves  we  have, 
it  is  necessary  to  exclude  all  further  importations  from 
Africa.  Yet,  our  repeated  requests  to  effect  this  by  pro 
hibitions,  and  by  imposing  duties  which  might  amount 
to  a  prohibition,  have  been  hitherto  defeated  by  His 
Majesty's  negative;  thus  preferring  the  immediate  ad 
vantage  of  a  few  British  Corsairs  to  the  lasting  interests 
of  the  American  States,  and  to  the  rights  of  human  nature 
deeply  wounded  by  this  infamous  practice."1 

The  representatives  from  Virginia  in  the  Continental 
Congress  were  active  in  their  efforts  to  secure  the  adoption 
of  the  Non-Importation  Agreement  which  included  a 
resolve  to  discontinue  the  slave  trade  and  a  pledge  neither 
to  hire  "our  vessels  nor  sell  our  commodities  or  manu 
factures  to  those  who  are  concerned  in  it."2 

W.  E.  B.  DuBois  declares:  "Virginia  gave  the  slave 
trade  a  special  prominence  and  was  in  reality  the  leading 
spirit  to  force  her  views  on  the  Continental  Congress."'- 

Nor  were  these  resolves  of  the  Virginia  people  idle,  for 
numerous  evidences  can  be  cited  of  the  activity  of  her 
vigilance  committees.  At  Norfolk,  the  committees,  find 
ing  that  one  John  Brown  had  purchased  slaves  from 
Jamaica,  reported  that  we  "hold  up  for  your  just  indigna 
tion  Mr.  John  Brown,  merchant  of  this  place  ...  to  the 
end  .  .  .  that  every  person  may  henceforth  break  off  all 
dealings  with  him."4 

Two  years  later,  but  before  the  proclamation  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  Virginia  adopted  a  written 
constitution  and  Bill  of  Rights.  In  the  preamble  to  the 
former  there  are  set  forth  the  reasons  which  influenced 

Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  Ford,  1892,  Vol.  I,  p.  440. 
^Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  DuBois,  p.  45. 
sldem,  p.  43. 
'Idem,  p.  47. 


VIRGINIA'S  BILL  OF  RIGHTS  23 

the  colony  to  cast  off  her  allegiance  to  the  British  King. 
Among  the  foremost  was  his  action  in  "perverting  his 
kingly  powers,"  .  .  .  "into  a  detestable  and  insupport 
able  tyranny  by  putting  his  negative  on  laws  the  most 
wholesome  and  necessary  for  the  public  good";  and  again, 
for  "prompting  our  negroes  to  rise  in  arms  among 
us — those  very  negroes  whom,  by  an  inhuman  use  of 
his  negative,  he  hath  refused  us  permission  to  exclude 
by  law."1 

Her  Bill  of  Rights  opened  with  the  then  novel  and  far 
reaching  declaration: 

"  That  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  independ 
ent,  and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  of  which  when  they 
enter  into  a  state  of  society,  they  cannot,  by  any  contract 
deprive  or  divest  their  posterity;  namely  the  enjoyment 
of  life  and  liberty,  with  the  means  of  acquiring  and  possess 
ing  property  and  pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness  and 
safety."2 

With  respect  to  this  great  document,  Mr.  Bancroft 
declares : 

"  Other  colonies  had  framed  Bills  of  Rights  in  reference 
to  their  relations  with  Britain;  Virginia  moved  from  char 
ters  and  customs  to  primal  principles;  from  the  alterca 
tion  about  facts  to  the  contemplation  of  immutable  truth. 
She  summoned  the  eternal  laws  of  man's  being  to  protest 
against  all  tyranny.  The  English  Petition  of  Right,  in 
1688,  was  historic  and  retrospective;  the  Virginia  declara 
tion  came  out  of  the  heart  of  nature  and  announced  govern 
ing  principles  for  all  peoples  in  all  times.  It  was  the 
voice  of  reason  going  forth  to  speak  a  new  political  world 
into  being.  At  the  bar  of  humanity  Virginia  gave  the 
name  and  fame  of  her  sons  as  hostages  that  her  public 

lHening's  Statutes,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  112-113. 
'Idem,  p.  109. 


24  CANONS  OF  LIBERTY 

life  should  show  a  likeness  to  the  highest  ideas  of  right 
and  equal  freedom  among  men/'1 

This  Bill  of  Rights  was  incorporated  in  every  subsequent 
constitution  of  Virginia  and  is  to-day  a  part  of  her  organic 
law.  Two  months  after  its  first  adoption  came  the  Declara 
tion  of  American  Independence.  The  words  of  Mason: 
"That  all  men  are  byjiature  equally  free  and  independent/' 
are  re-echoed  in  the  words  of  Jefferson,  "That  all  men 
are  created  equal/'  and  both  declare  that  among  the 
inalienable  rights  of  man  are  "life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness." 

To  these  principles,  Virginia  acknowledged  allegiance; 
to  the  Bill  of  Rights,  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  her  Con 
stitutional  Convention;  and  to  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  by  the  united  voices  of  her  delegates  in  the 
Continental  Congress.  The  institution  of  slavery  could 
not  square  with  these  great  canons.  Henceforth  its 
existence  in  Virginia  could  be  justified  only  by  the  diffi 
culties  and  dangers  attending  its  abolition. 

These  recitals  bring  us  down  to  the  close  of  Virginia's 
life  as  a  colony,  and  the  assumption  by  her  people  of  the 
rights  and  obligations  of  statehood.  In  the  more  than 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  her  colonial  existence — 
despite  protests,  appeals  and  statutes — the  inflowing  tide 
from  Africa  had  continued,  so  that  out  of  a  population  of 
some  six  hundred  thousand  souls,  over  two-fifths  were 
negro  slaves.  It  was  amid  such  conditions  that  Virginia 
met  the  problems  incident  to  her  birth  into  statehood,  bore 
her  part  in  founding  the  Republic,  furnished  her  quota  of 
soldiers  to  resist  the  armies  of  Great  Britain,  and  held 
with  fixed  determination  her  ever  advancing  border  line 
against  the  craft  and  courage  of  the  Red  Men. 

^History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  IV,  p.  419. 


IV 

VIRGINIA'S   STATUTE   ABOLISHING   THE   AFRICAN   SLAVE 

TRADE  AND  HER  PART  IN  ENACTING  THE 

ORDINANCE  OF  1787 

FOREMOST  among  the  laws  enacted  by  her  General 
Assembly  after  Virginia's  declaration  of  independence  from 
British  rule  was  her  celebrated  statute  prohibiting  the 
slave  trade.  This  act  was  passed  in  1778 — thus  ante 
dating  by  thirty  years  the  like  action  of  Great  Britain. 
By  this  law,  it  was  provided,  "that  from  and  after  the 
passing  of  this  act  no  slaves  shall  hereafter  be  imported 
into  this  commonwealth  by  sea  or  land,  nor  shall  any 
slaves  so  imported  be  sold  or  bought  by  any  person  what 
soever."  The  statute  imposed  a  fine  of  one  thousand 
pounds  upon  the  person  importing  them  for  each  slave 
imported,  and  also  a  fine  of  five  hundred  pounds  upon 
any  person  buying  or  selling  any  such  slave  for  each  slave 
so  bought  or  sold.  The  crime  of  bringing  in  slaves  is  still 
further  guarded  against  by  a  provision  which  declares  that 
every  slave  "  shall  upon  such  importation  become  free/'1 
Of  this  act,  Mr.  Ballagh,  in  his  History  of  Slavery  in  Vir 
ginia,  says,  "  Virginia  thus  had  the  honor  of  being  the  first 
political  community  in  the  civilized  modern  world  to  pro 
hibit  the  pernicious  traffic."2 

Next  in  the  sequence  of  great  events  linked  with  this 
subject  was  the  work  of  her  sons  in  the  preparation  and 

lHening's  Statutes,  Vol.  IX,  p.  471. 

^History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  Ballagh,  p.  23. 

25 


26      VIRGINIA'S  CONQUEST  OF  THE  NORTHWEST 

adoption  of  the  ordinance  for  the  government  of  the  north 
west  territory.  This  imperial  domain  from  which  have 
been  created  the  states  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan 
and  Wisconsin  had  been  conquered  by  her  soldiers,  led 
by  her  son,  George  Rogers  Clark,  acting  under  a  com 
mission  of  her  Governor,  Patrick  Henry,  and  her  Council.1 
"Virginians/'  says  Mr.  Bancroft,  "in  the  service  of 
Virginia."  Virginia  claimed  the  country  as  comprised 
within  the  limits  fixed  by  her  colonial  charter.  Massa 
chusetts,  Connecticut  and  New  York  also  asserted  claims, 
but,  as  John  Fiske  declares,  "It  was  Virginia  that  had 
actually  conquered  the  disputed  territory."2  And  again 
he  writes,  "Virginia  gave  up  a  magnificent  and  princely 
territory  of  which  she  was  actually  in  possession."3  When, 
by  the  valor  of  her  sons,  Virginia  had  won  the  land  from 
the  English  and  the  Indians,  she  silenced  the  murmurings 
of  sister  states  and  consummated  the  efforts  for  union 
by  formally  relinquishing  the  great  domain  to  the  common 
weal. 

The  day  that  Virginia's  deed  of  cession,  March  the  first, 
1784,  was  accepted  by  the  Continental  Congress,  Mr. 
Jefferson  reported  his  bill — the  Ordinance  of  1784.  This 
measure  was  one  of  far  reaching  importance  in  that  it 
provided  not  only  for  many  of  the  governmental  needs 
of  this  great  territory,  but  declared  that  after  the  year 
1800,  slavery  should  never  exist  in  any  portion  of  the  vast 
domain  west  of  a  line  drawn  north  and  south  between 
Lake  Erie  and  the  Spanish  dominions  of  Florida.  Had 
this  clause  been  retained  in  the  ordinance,  slavery  would 
have  been  excluded  not  only  from  the  five  states  created 

lLife  of  Patrick  Henry,  W.  W.  Henry,  Vol.  I,  p.  583. 
Critical  Period  of  American  History,  Fiske,  p.  191. 
3Idem,  p.  195. 


ORDINANCE  OF   1787  27 

out  of  the  northwest  territory  but  from  the  country  south 
of  it  and  from  which  were  subsequently  formed  the  states 
of  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Alabama  and  Mississippi. 

This  provision  of  the  ordinance,  however,  failed  of 
adoption — the  votes  of  six  states  being  recorded  in  its  favor, 
one  less  than  the  requisite  majority.  Mr.  Jefferson's 
colleagues  present,  Hardy  and  Mercer,  refused  to  join 
him  in  voting  for  this  novel  enactment.  Its  failure  was 
a  matter  of  profound  regret  to  its  author.  In  a  letter  to 
M.  de  Munier,  Mr.  Jefferson  wrote: 

"The  voice  of  a  single  individual  of  the  state  which 
was  divided,  or  one  of  those  which  were  of  the  negative, 
would  have  prevented  this  abominable  crime  from  spread 
ing  itself  over  the  new  country.  Thus  we  see  the  fate 
of  millions  unborn  hanging  on  the  tongue  of  one  man 
and  Heaven  was  silent  in  that  awful  moment."1 

This  ambition  of  Mr.  Jefferson  was  not  destined  to 
complete  defeat.  Three  years  later,  the  now  celebrated 
Ordinance  of  1787  was  enacted  into  law.  "No  one  was 
more  active/'  says  Mr.  Fiske,  "in  bringing  about  this 
result  than  William  Grayson  of  Virginia,  who  was  earnestly 
supported  by  Lee."2 

Mr.  Bancroft  says: 

"Thomas  Jefferson  first  summoned  Congress  to  pro 
hibit  slavery  in  all  the  territory  of  the  United  States; 
Rufus  King  lifted  up  the  measure  when  it  lay  almost 
lifeless  on  the  ground,  and  suggested  the  immediate 
instead  of  the  prospective  prohibition;  a  Congress  com 
posed  of  five  Southern  States  to  one  from  New  England 
and  two  from  the  Middle  States,  headed  by  William  Gray- 
son,  supported  by  Richard  Henry  Lee,  and  using  Nathan 

Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford,  Vol.  IV,  p.  181. 
^Critical  Period  of  American  History,  Fiske,  p.  205. 


28         VIRGINIA  CONFIRMS  ORDINANCE  OF  1787 

Dane  as  scribe,  carried  the  measure  to  the  goal  in  the 
amended  form  in  which  King  had  caused  it  to  be  referred 
to  a  committee;  and,  as  Jefferson  had  proposed,  placed 
it  under  the  sanction  of  an  irrevocable  compact."1 

The  ordinance  as  passed  contained  many  provisions 
in  addition  to  those  set  out  in  Virginia's  deed  of  cession. 
It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  Virginia  should  by  proper 
enactment  reaffirm  her  deed.  The  General  Assembly 
of  Virginia  at  its  next  session  accordingly  passed  an  act 
fixing  for  all  time  the  validity  of  both  deed  and  ordinance.2 
Mr.  Bancroft  says: 

"A  powerful  committee  on  which  were  Carrington, 
Monroe,  Edmund  Randolph  and  Grayson,  successfully 
brought  forward  the  bill  by  which  Virginia  confirmed 
the  ordinance  for  the  colonization  of  all  the  territory 
then  in  the  possession  of  the  United  States,  by  freemen 
alone."3 

Thus  the  old  commonwealth  which  had  won  the  land 
from  England  and  the  Indians  bore  a  foremost  part  in  the 
legislative  work  by  which  slavery  was  forever  excluded  from 
the  empire  north  of  the  Ohio  River. 

^History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  VI,  p.  290. 

'Hening's  Statutes,  Vol.  XII,  p.  780. 

^History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  VI,  p.  291. 


FOREIGN  SLAVE  TRADE  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION: 
VIRGINIA'S  POSITION 

THE  supreme  opportunity  for  suppressing  the  importa 
tion  of  slaves  and  thus  hastening  the  day  of  emancipation 
came  with  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  As 
we  have  seen,  with  every  increase  in  the  number  of  slaves 
the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  emancipation  were  multiplied. 
The  hope  of  emancipation  rested  in  stopping  their  further 
importation  and  dispersing  throughout  the  land  those 
who  had  already  found  a  home  in  our  midst.  To  put 
an  end  to  "this  pernicious  traffic"  was  therefore  the 
supreme  duty  of  the  hour,  but  despite  Virginia's  protests 
and  appeals  the  foreign  slave  trade  was  legalized  by  the 
Federal  Constitution  for  an  additional  period  of  twenty 
years.  The  nation  knew  not  the  day  of  its  visitation — 
with  blinded  eyes  and  reckless  hand  it  sowed  the  dragon's 
teeth  from  which  have  sprung  the  conditions  and  prob 
lems  which  even  to-day  tax  the  thought  and  conscience 
of  the  American  people. 

This  action  of  the  convention  is  declared  by  Mr.  Fiske, 
to  have  been  "a  bargain  between  New  England  and  the 
far  South." 

"New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut," 
he  adds,  "  consented  to  the  prolonging  of  the  foreign  slave 
trade  for  twenty  years,  or  until  1808;  and  in  return 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  consented  to  the  clause  em 
powering  Congress  to  pass  Navigation  Acts  and  other- 

29 


30          OPPOSITION  TO  FOREIGN  SLAVE  TRADE 

wise  regulate  commerce  by  a  simple  majority  of  votes."1 
George  W.  Williams,  the  negro  historian,  avers  that, 

"Thus,  by  an  understanding  or,  as  Gouverneur  Morris 
called  it,  'a  bargain'  between  the  commercial  representa 
tives  of  the  Northern  States  and  the  delegates  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  and  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of 
Maryland  and  Virginia,  the  unrestricted  power  of  Congress 
to  enact  Navigation  Laws  was  conceded  to  the  Northern 
merchants;  and  to  the  Carolina  rice  planters,  as  an  equiva 
lent,  twenty  years'  continuance  of  the  African  slave  trade/'3 

Continuing,  Mr.  Fiske  says,  "This  compromise  was 
carried  against  the  sturdy  opposition  of  Virginia."  George 
Mason  spoke  the  sentiments  of  the  Mother-Commonwealth 
when  in  a  speech  against  this  provision  of  the  constitution, 
which  reads  like  prophecy  and  judgment,  he  said: 

"  This  infernal  traffic  originated  in  the  avarice  of  British 
merchants.  The  British  Government  constantly  checked 
the  attempts  of  Virginia  to  put  a  stop  to  it.  The  present 
question  concerns,  not  the  importing  states  alone,  but 
the  whole  Union.  .  .  .  Maryland  and  Virginia,  he  said, 
had  already  prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves  expressly. 
North  Carolina  had  done  the  same  in  substance.  All  this 
would  be  in  vain  if  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  be  at  liberty 
to  import.  The  Western  people  are  already  calling  out  for 
slaves  for  their  new  lands;  and  will  fill  that  country  with 
slaves  if  they  can  be  got  through  South  Carolina  and  Georgia. 
Slavery  discourages  arts  and  manufactures.  The  poor  de 
spise  labor  when  performed  by  slaves.  They  prevent  the 
emigration  of  whites,  who  really  enrich  and  strengthen 
a  country.  They  produce  the  most  pernicious  effect  on 
manners.  Every  master  of  slaves  is  born  a  petty  tyrant. 
They  bring  the  judgment  of  Heaven  on  a  country.  As 
nations  cannot  be  rewarded  or  punished  in  the  next  world, 
they  must  be  in  this.  By  an  inevitable  chain  of  causes 

^Critical  Period  of  American  History,  Fiske,  p.  264. 

^History  of  Negro  Race  in  America,  Williams,  Vol.  I,  p.  426. 


FOREIGN  SLAVE  TRADE  LEGALIZED  31 

and  effects,  Providence  punishes  National  sins  by  National 
calamities.  He  lamented  that  some  of  our  Eastern 
brethren  had,  from  a  lust  of  gain,  embarked  in  this  nefarious 
traffic.  As  to  the  states  being  in  possession  of  the  right 
to  import,  this  was  the  case  with  many  other  rights,  now 
to  be  properly  given  up.  He  held  it  essential,  in  every 
point  of  view,  that  the  General  Government  should  have 
power  to  prevent  the  increase  of  slavery." 

"But  these  prophetic  words  of  George  Mason,"  adds 
Mr.  Fiske,  "were  powerless  against  the  combination  of 
New  England  and  the  far  South."1 

Some  seven  decades  later,  Virginia  erected  under  the 
shadow  of  her  Capitol  a  bronze  statue  to  commemorate 
the  fame  of  this  illustrious  son. 

Governor  Randolph  and  Mr.  Madison  earnestly  sup 
ported  their  colleague,  the  former  declaring  that  this 
feature  rendered  the  constitution  so  odious  as  to  make 
doubtful  his  ability  to  support  it;  and  the  latter  asserting, 
"Twenty  years  will  produce  all  the  mischief  that  can  be 
apprehended  from  the  liberty  to  import  slaves.  So  long  a 
term  will  be  more  dishonorable  to  the  American  character 
than  to  say  nothing  about  it  in  the  constitution."2 

Thus  it  was  by  the  votes  of  New  Hampshire,  Massa 
chusetts,  Connecticut,  Maryland,  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  and  against  the  votes  of  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware  and  Virginia,  that  the  slave 
trade  was  legalized  by  the  National  Government  for  the 
period  from  1787  to  1808. 

If  it  be  argued  that  this  provision  of  the  constitution 
offered  no  menace  to  Virginia  or  to  any  other  state  not 
willing  to  admit  the  importations,  the  reply  is  obvious 

^Critical  Period  of  American  History,  Fiske,  p.  264. 
2Life  and  Times  of  Madison,  Rives,  Vol.  II,  p.  446. 


32  DISASTERS  RESULTING  THEREFROM 

that  this  action  of  the  National  Government  was  deplorable 
because  it  placed  the  imprimatur  of  its  supreme  law  upon 
the  morality  as  well  as  legality  of  the  slave  trade;  and 
further,  because  with  the  advent  from  abroad  of  every 
additional  slave  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  emancipating 
those  in  the  South — their  natural  habitat — was  increased. 
New  England  and  the  North  were  not  menaced.  Climatic 
and  economic  conditions,  as  well  as  their  local  laws,  raised 
a  protecting  barrier.  Beneath  the  hot  skies  of  the  South- 
where  flourished  the  much  sought  for  crops  of  cotton,  rice 
and  sugar  cane — was  the  land  to  which  with  unerring 
instinct  the  Trader  piloted  his  craft  freighted  with  igno 
rance  and  woe.  As  long,  therefore,  as  one  port  remained 
open  and  the  National  Government  sanctioned  the  traffic, 
just  so  long  would  the  inflowing  tide  continue,  each  new 
arrival  adding  to  the  difficulties  of  the  situation. 

Thus  the  nation,  under  its  new  charter,  entered  upon  its 
career  handicapped  by  the  curse  of  slavery  and  further 
menaced  by  the  new  lease  of  life  accorded  the  slave  trade. 
Upon  Virginia  the  maximum  of  burden  rested.  She  had 
within  her  borders  nearly  one-third  of  the  whole  slave 
population  of  the  Union.  Hers  was  the  ceaseless  task  of 
guarding  against  further  importations  from  home  or 
abroad;  of  devising  some  practicable  plan  for  gradually 
emancipating  the  slaves  in  her  midst,  and  meanwhile  to 
continue  day  by  day  the  work  of  teaching  these  children 
of  the  Dark  Continent  an  intelligible  language,  the  use  of 
tools,  the  necessity  for  labor  and  the  rudiments  of  morality 
and  religion. 


VI 

THE   FOREIGN   SLAVE   TRADE — VIRGINIA'S   EFFORTS 
TO  ABOLISH  IT 

DESPITE  Virginia's  failure  to  secure  the  immediate  sup 
pression  of  the  foreign  slave  trade,  her  sons  were  active 
in  their  efforts  to  restrict  its  growth  and  at  the  earliest 
possible  moment  to  drive  the  slave  ships  from  the  seas. 

In  the  first  Congress  under  the  constitution,  April, 
1789,  Josiah  Parker  of  Virginia  sought  to  amend  the 
Tariff  Bill  under  discussion  by  inserting  a  clause  levying 
an  import  tax  of  ten  dollars  upon  every  slave  brought  into 
the  country. 

"He  was  sorry  the  constitution  prevented  Congress 
from  prohibiting  the  importation  altogether.  It  was 
contrary  to  Revolution  principles  and  ought  not  to  be 
permitted.  .  .  .  He  hoped  Congress  would  do  all  in  their 
power  to  restore  to  human  nature  its  inherent  privileges; 
to  wipe  off,  if  possible,  the  stigma  under  which  America 
labored;  to  do  away  with  the  inconsistence  in  our 
principles  justly  charged  upon  us;  and  to  show  by  our 
actions,  the  pure  beneficence  of  the  doctrine  held  out  to 
the  world  in  our  Declaration  of  Independence. " 

Mr.  Parker  was  supported  by  two  other  Virginians, 
Theodoric  Bland  and  James  Madison,  the  latter  declaring: 

"  The  clause  in  the  constitution  allowing  a  tax  to  be  im 
posed  though  the  traffic  could  not  be  prohibited  for 
twenty  years,  was  inserted,  he  believed,  for  the  very  pur 
pose  of  enabling  Congress  to  give  some  testimony  of  the 
sense  of  America  with  respect  to  the  African  trade.  By 

33 


34  THE  FOREIGN  SLAVE  TRADE 

expressing  a  national  disapprobation  of  that  trade  it  is 
to  be  hoped  we  may  destroy  it,  and  so  save  ourselves  from 
reproaches  and  our  posterity  from  the  imbecility  ever 
attendant  on  a  country  filled  with  slaves."1 

But  notwithstanding  these  appeals  the  movement  was 
defeated,  though  the  discussion  was  evidently  fruitful 
in  bringing  to  the  attention  of  the  country  that  under 
the  constitution,  Congress  had  authority  not  only  to  levy 
a  tax  of  ten  dollars  per  capita  on  slaves  imported,  but  to 
prohibit  citizens  of  the  United  States  from  engaging  in 
the  traffic  with  foreign  countries.  These  latter  conclusions 
were  formally  embodied  in  a  report  made  to  Congress  on 
the  23rd  of  March,  1790,  by  a  committee  of  which  Josiah 
Parker  of  Virginia  was  one  of  the  leading  members. 
The  adoption  of  this  report  stirred  the  opponents  of  the 
slave  trade  to  greater  activity  and  numerous  petitions 
were  presented  at  the  next  session  of  Congress  from  Mary 
land  and  Virginia  and  almost  every  one  of  the  Northern 
States.  In  the  Virginia  petition,  the  slave  trade  was 
denounced  as  "  an  outrageous  violation  of  one  of  the  most 
essential  rights  of  human  nature.7'2 

In  his  message  to  Congress,  at  its  session,  1806-7,  Mr. 
Jefferson,  then  President,  brought  to  the  attention  of 
that  body  the  fact  that  under  the  constitution  the  time 
was  at  hand  when  the  African  slave  trade  could  be  abolished, 
and  urged  the  speedy  enactment  of  such  a  law.  He  said: 

"I  congratulate  you,  fellow-citizens,  on  the  approach 
of  a  period  at  which  you  may  interpose  your  authority 
constitutionally  to  withdraw  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  from  all  further  participation  in  those  violations 
of  human  rights  which  have  so  long  been  continued  on  the 

lAnnah  of  Congress,  Vol.  I,  col.  336. 
^Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  DuBois,  p.  80. 


VIRGINIA'S  EFFORTS  TO  ABOLISH  IT  35 

unoffending  inhabitants  of  Africa,  and  which  the  morality, 
the  reputation  and  the  best  interests  of  our  country  have 
long  been  eager  to  proscribe." 

An  act  was  accordingly  passed  prohibiting  the  slave 
trade  and  imposing  forfeitures  and  fines  upon  ships  and 
ships'  crews  engaged  in  the  traffic.  The  law  also  forfeited 
slaves  so  illegally  imported  and  provided  that  the  dis 
position  of  such  slaves  should  be  left  to  the  states  wherein 
they  were  found. 

The  African  slave  trade  had  flourished  so  long  under  the 
patronage  and  support  of  the  leading  nations  of  Christen 
dom  and  with  the  acquiescence,  at  least,  of  the  United 
States  during  the  previous  twenty  years,  that  it  was 
difficult  by  simple  statutory  enactment  to  put  an  end  to 
the  nefarious  traffic.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the 
trade  continued  from  time  to  time  between  the  coast  of 
Africa,  the  United  States,  West  Indies  and  Brazil,  despite 
the  efforts  of  the  Federal  authorities  to  enforce  the  laws 
made  for  its  suppression.  In  all  these  efforts  Virginians, 
holding  official  places,  were  most  earnest  and  energetic 
in  their  warfare  against  the  trade. 

In  his  message  to  Congress,  December  5,  1810,  President 
Madison  declares: 

"Among  the  commercial  abuses  still  committed  under 
the  American  flag  ...  it  appears  that  American  citizens 
are  instrumental  in  carrying  on  the  traffic  in  enslaved 
Africans,  equally  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  humanity  and 
in  defiance  of  those  of  their  own  country," 

and  urges  Congress  to  devise  further  means  for  suppressing 
the  evil. 

Again,  in  his  message  to  Congress  of  December  3,  1816, 
President  Madison  brings  the  subject  to  the  attention  of 


36  THE  FOREIGN  SLAVE  TRADE 

Congress  and  urges  the  enactment  of  such  amendments 
as  will  suppress  violations  of  the  statute. 

In  the  progress  of  time,  certain  slaves  brought  into  the 
country  in  violation  of  the  act  were  captured  and  sold, 
thus  in  effect  defeating  one  of  the  prime  objects  of  the 
law,  which  was  to  prevent  any  increase  in  the  slave  popula 
tion.  Thereupon,  at  the  session  of  Congress,  1819,  under 
the  leadership  of  Charles  Fenton  Mercer  and  John  Floyd 
of  Virginia  a  bill  was  passed  amending  the  existing  statute, 
requiring  the  President  to  use  armed  cruisers  off  the  coasts 
of  Africa  and  America  to  suppress  the  trade,  providing 
for  the  immediate  return  to  Africa  of  any  imported  slaves, 
directing  the  President  to  appoint  agents  to  receive  and 
care  for  them  on  their  return  and  appropriating  One 
Hundred  Thousand  Dollars  to  carry  out  the  general  pur 
poses  of  the  law.1 

In  the  House,  on  motion  of  Hugh  Nelson,  of  Virginia, 
the  death  penalty  was  fixed  as  the  punishment  for  violating 
the  law,  but  this  provision  was  stricken  out  by  the  Senate.2 

In  February,  1823,  Charles  Fenton  Mercer,  a  repre 
sentative  from  Virginia,  in  the  House,  secured  the  adoption 
of  the  following  joint  resolution: 

"RESOLVED,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States 
be  requested  to  enter  upon  and  to  prosecute  from  time 
to  time  such  negotiations  with  the  maritime  powers  of 
Europe  and  America  as  he  may  deem  expedient  for  the 
effectual  abolition  of  the  African  slave  trade  and  its  ultimate 
denunciation  as  Piracy  under  the  laws  of  Nations  by  the 
consent  of  the  civilized  world."3 

Mr.  Mercer,  in  urging  the  adoption  of  this  resolution, 

1  Annals  of  Congress,  15th  Congress,  2nd  section,  part  I,  pp.  442-3. 
^Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  DuBois,  p.  120,  Note  3. 
3Annals  of  Congress,  17th  Congress,  second  session,  pp.  435  and 
928. 


VIRGINIA'S  EFFORTS  TO  ABOLISH  IT  37 

denounced  the  African  slave  trade  "as  a  crime  begun  on 
a  barbarous  shore,  claimed  by  no  civilized  state,  and 
subject  to  no  moral  law;  a  remnant  of  ancient  barbarism, 
a  curse  extended  to  the  New  World  by  the  colonial  policy 
of  the  Old."1 

Mr.  Mercer  supplemented  his  congressional  action  by 
visits  made  at  his  own  expense  to  the  Governments  of  the 
Old  World  to  urge  upon  them  the  adoption  of  the  policy 
set  forth  in  his  resolution.' 

It  was  early  appreciated  that  unless  at  least  a  qualified 
"right  of  search"  was  accorded  the  war  vessels  of  the 
leading  nations  engaged  in  the  effort  to  suppress  the  slave 
trade,  these  efforts  would  be  seriously  hindered.  Ac 
cordingly  the  lower  house  of  Congress,  in  May,  1821, 
under  the  leadership  of  Charles  Fenton  Mercer,  from 
whose  committee  the  resolution  was  reported,  adopted 
the  recommendation  that  a  "right  of  search"  be  accorded 
the  British  Government  in  return  for  a  like  privilege 
accorded  the  United  States.3  This  resolution,  however, 
was  defeated  in  the  Senate. 

Subsequently  President  Monroe  submitted  to  Congress 
the  draft  of  a  treaty  with  England  embodying  this  provi 
sion.  In  a  special  message,  under  date  of  May  21,  1824, 
he  gave  at  length  his  reasons  for  approving  the  treaty — 
saying: 

"Should  this  convention  be  adopted  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  it  will  be  the  commencement  of  a 
system  destined  to  accomplish  the  entire  abolition  of  the 
slave  trade." 

lRise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  A merica,  Wilson,  Vol.  I,  p.  106. 
*The  Confederate  Cause  and  Conduct  in  the  War  Between  the  States, 
McGuire  and  Christian,  p.  17. 

Suppression  of  Slave  Trade,  DuBois,  p.  137. 


38  THE  FOREIGN  SLAVE  TRADE 

Unfortunately,  the  ratification  of  this  treaty  was  de 
feated  in  the  Senate,  and  not  until  1862  was  the  "  right  of 
search"  between  Great  Britain  and  America  established. 

In  his  message  to  Congress  June  1,  1841,  President 
Tyler  writes: 

"I  shall  also  at  the  proper  season  invite  your  attention 
to  the  statutory  enactments  for  the  suppression  of  the 
slave  trade  which  may  require  to  be  rendered  more  effective 
in  their  provisions.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the 
traffic  is  on  the  increase  .  .  The  highest  consideration  of 
public  honor  as  well  as  the  strongest  promptings  of  human 
ity  require  a  resort  to  the  most  vigorous  efforts  to  suppress 
the  trade." 

Again,  in  his  message  of  December  7,  1841,  President 
Tyler  writes: 

"I  invite  your  attention  to  existing  laws  for  the  sup 
pression  of  the  African  slave  trade,  and  recommend  all 
such  alterations  as  may  give  to  them  greater  force  and 
efficiency.  That  the  American  flag  is  grossly  abused 
by  the  abandoned  and  profligate  of  other  nations  is  but 
too  probable." 

In  1842,  in  the  preparation  of  the  Ashburton  Treaty 
President  Tyler  secured  the  insertion  of  a  clause  providing 
for  the  maintenance  and  co-operation  of  squadrons  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  off  the  coast  of  Africa 
for  the  suppression  of  the  trade.1 

The  ratification  of  this  treaty  was  urged  upon  the 
Senate  by  the  President  in  his  message  of  August  11, 1842, 
as  conducive  to  the  abolition  of  what  he  termed  the  "un 
lawful  and  inhuman  traffic." 

Though  Brazil,  by  statute,  prohibited  the  African  slave 
trade  in  1831,  yet  the  traffic  continued  and  in  this  trade 

^Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  Tyler,  Vol.  II,  p.  219. 


VIRGINIA'S  EFFORTS  TO  ABOLISH  IT  39 

citizens  of  the  United  States  as  ship  owners,  or  crew, 
were  engaged  despite  the  Federal  statutes  against  such  a 
practice.  Henry  A.  Wise  of  Virginia,  Consul  at  Rio 
Janeiro,  made  frequent  and  earnest  reports  to  the  State 
Department  calling  the  attention  of  the  authorities  to 
these  violations.  Under  date  of  February  18th,  1845, 
he  writes  to  the  Secretary  of  State  at  Washington: 

"  I  beseech,  I  implore  the  President  of  the  United  States 
to  take  a  decided  stand  on  this  subject.  You  have  no 
conception  of  the  bold  effrontery  and  the  flagrant  outrages 
of  the  African  slave  trade,  and  of  the  shameless  manner 
in  which  its  worst  crimes  are  licensed  here,  and  every 
patriot  in  our  land  would  blush  for  our  country  did  he 
know  and  see,  as  I  do,  how  our  citizens  sail  and  sell  our 
flag  to  the  uses  and  abuses  of  that  accursed  practice/'1 

In  his  message  to  Congress,  under  date  of  December 
4th,  1849,  President  Taylor  writes: 

"Your  attention  is  earnestly  invited  to  an  amendment 
of  our  existing  laws  relating  to  the  African  slave  trade 
with  a  view  to  the  effectual  suppression  of  that  barbarous 
traffic.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  this  trade  is  still  in 
part  carried  on  by  means  of  vessels  built  in  the  United  States 
and  owned  or  navigated  by  some  of  our  citizens. " 

The  foregoing  recitals  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  un 
compromising  attitude  of  hostility  on  the  part  of  leading 
Virginians  toward  the  African  slave  trade.  They  sought 
by  Federal  statutes  and  concerted  action  with  foreign 
nations  to  drive  the  pernicious  traffic  from  the  seas.  They 
denounced  the  trade  as  inhuman,  because  it  stimulated 
men  to  reduce  free  men  to  slavery  and  then  entailed  upon 
slaves  the  horrors  and  dangers  of  the  "middle  passage." 
They  resolutely  opposed  any  addition  to  the  slave  popula- 

1 American  Slave  Trade,  Spear,  p.  81. 


40  THE   FOREIGN   SLAVE   TRADE 

tion  of  America  because  profoundly  convinced  that  every 
such  importation  was  fraught  with  menace  to  the  social, 
economic  and  moral  well-being  of  the  nation  and  rendered 
more  difficult  the  emancipation  of  those  who  had  already 
been  brought  to  her  shores.  As  we  have  seen,  her  repre 
sentatives  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  Continental  Congress 
had  defined  Virginia's  position  in  the  notable  memorial 
which  declared: 

"The  abolition  of  domestic  slavery  is  the  great  object 
of  desire  in  those  colonies,  where  it  was  unhappily  intro 
duced  in  their  infant  state.  But,  previous  to  the  en 
franchisement  of  the  slaves  we  have,  it  is  necessary  to 
exclude  all  further  importations  from  Africa/'1 

This  was  the  philosophy  of  the  situation  as  defined  by 
the  great  statesmen  of  the  Revolutionary  period  and  to 
their  views  their  ablest  successors  in  Virginia  adhered  down 
to  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War. 

Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford,  Vol.  I,  p.  440. 


VII 

SOME  VIRGINIA  STATUTES  WITH  RESPECT  TO  SLAVERY 

HAVING  by  her  act  of  1778,  prohibiting  the  importation 
of  slaves,  provided  against  any  increase  in  their  number 
from  without,  Virginia  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution  pro 
ceeded  to  legislate  with  respect  to  those  already  in  her  midst, 
permitting  and  encouraging  their  gradual  emancipation. 

Under  British  rule,  slaveholders  were  forbidden  to 
manumit  their  slaves,  except  with  the  permission  of  the 
Council.1  In  1782,  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia 
enacted  a  law,  under  which  slaveholders  were  authorized 
to  emancipate  their  slaves  by  deed  or  will  duly  made  and 
recorded.2 

By  an  act  passed  in  1785,  it  was  provided  that  slaves 
brought  into  the  state  and  remaining  twelve  months 
should  be  free.3 

In  1787,  acts  were  passed  validating  certain  manumis 
sions  made  by  wills  prior  to  1782,  the  General  Assembly 
declaring  that  it  was  "just  and  proper"  that  "the  benevo 
lent  intentions"  of  the  testators  should  be  carried  into 
effect.* 

In  1788,  an  act  was  passed  making  the  enslaving  of  the 
child  of  free  blacks  a  crime  punishable  by  death  upon  the 
scaffold,5 

lHening's  Statutes,  Vol.  IV,  p.  132. 

*Hening's  Statutes,  Vol.  XI,  p.  39. 

3Hening's  Statutes,  Vol.  XII,  p.  182. 

*Hening's  Statutes,  Vol.  XII,  pp.  611  and  613. 

*Idem,  p.  531. 

41 


42  STATUTE   PERMITTING  EMANCIPATIONS 

In  1795,  an  act  was  passed  allowing  a  slave  to  sue  in 
forma  pauperis  in  any  court  proceedings  affecting  his 
freedom.  He  might  make  complaint  to  the  nearest 
magistrate  or  court  and  the  owner  was  then  required  to 
give  bond  to  permit  the  slave  to  attend  the  next  term  of 
the  court  and  maintain  his  cause.  If  the  owner  failed  or 
refused  to  comply,  the  slave  was  taken  into  the  custody 
of  the  state,  counsel  was  assigned  to  defend  his  cause 
and  every  process  of  the  law  allowed  him  without  cost.1 
Following  the  adoption  of  the  foregoing  laws,  the  General 
Assembly,  in  1803,  passed  an  act  to  still  further  safeguard 
the  rights  of  negroes  who  had  secured  their  freedom.  By 
this  last  act  the  authorities  were  required  to  keep  registers 
in  each  county  in  which  were  to  be  recorded  the  names 
of  all  the  free  negroes  and  also  the  names  of  slaves  whose 
right  to  manumission  would  accrue  upon  the  death  of  the 
person  having  only  an  estate  for  life  in  such  slaves. 

The  effect  of  these  acts  facilitating  and  encouraging 
manumissions  at  length  began  to  appear.  At  the  close 
of  the  Revolution  there  were  less  than  three  thousand 
free  negroes  in  Virginia.2  In  the  ten  years  next  succeed 
ing,  they  reached  thirteen  thousand,  and  the  census  of 
1810  records  their  number  at  thirty  thousand,  five  hundred 
and  seventy.  Here  was  a  new  problem — the  presence  in 
a  state  dominated  by  white  men  of  a  considerable  body 
of  negroes  possessing  neither  the  privileges  of  the  whites 
nor  amenable  to  the  restrictions  imposed  upon  the  great 
mass  of  the  blacks.  As  a  result  of  these  conditions,  acts 
were  passed  in  1806  providing  that  no  slaves  thereafter 
manumitted  should  remain  in  Virginia.  In  1819  an  act 
was  passed  authorizing  the  County  Courts  to  permit  such 

lHistory  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  Ballagh,  p.  123. 
^History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  Ballagh,  p.  121. 


STATUTE  RESTRICTING  EMANCIPATION  43 

as  were  "  sober,  peaceful,  orderly  and  industrious  to  remain 
in  the  state."1  Later,  it  was  provided  by  statute  that 
all  slaves  thereafter  manumitted  should  leave  the  state 
within  twelve  months  from  the  date  of  their  emancipation. 
Thenceforward  slaveholders  were  accorded  the  right  to 
manumit  their  slaves,  subject  to  the  claims  of  their  creditors 
and  to  the  obligation  upon  the  former  slaves  of  going 
beyond  the  state  within  twelve  months  following  their 
manumission. 

While  these  last  mentioned  statutes  embarrassed  the 
work  of  emancipation,  they  stimulated  the  sentiment  in 
favor  of  colonization.  However,  despite  the  difficulties 
which  confronted  them,  slaveholders  still  continued  to 
emancipate  their  slaves  and  hostility  to  the  institution 
of  slavery — the  conviction  that  it  was  a  burden  upon  the 
commonwealth — became  more  and  more  widespread  among 
the  people.  The  growth  of  these  sentiments  continued 
until  the  year  1832.  The  Rev.  Philip  Slaughter,  a  writer 
with  pro-slavery  sympathies,  records: 

"  That  was  the  culminating  point — the  flood  tide  of  anti- 
slavery  feeling  which  had  been  gradually  rising  for  more 
than  a  century  in  Virginia  was  then  precipitated  upon  us 
before  its  time  by  the  Southampton  convulsion/'2 

To  the  disastrous  effects  upon  public  sentiment  of  this 
tragic  event  which  occurred  in  August,  1831,  must  be 
added  the  reactionary  influence  of  the  Abolitionists,  who 
now  began  their  work  of  agitation  and  their  arraignment, 
not  simply  of  slavery  nor  of  slaveholders,  but  of  the 
morality  and  civilization  of  every  community  in  which 
the  institution  existed.  The  failure,  too,  of  the  General 

lldem,  p.  125. 

*The  Virginian  History  of  African  Colonization,  Slaughter,  p.  55. 


44  STATUTE  RESTRICTING  EMANCIPATION 

Assembly  of  Virginia  at  its  session  of  1832  to  adopt  any 
plan  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  or  for  the  removal 
beyond  the  state  of  the  free  negroes  then  within  her  borders 
was  also  strongly  reactionary.  Despite  the  ability  and 
influence  of  the  anti-slavery  leaders  in  that  body  no 
remedial  legislation  was  adopted  and  thousands  of  the 
people  accepted  the  result  as  proof  of  the  fact  that  the 
practical  difficulties  in  the  way  of  emancipation  were 
such  as  to  shut  out  the  hope  of  its  accomplishment. 


vm 

THE  MOVEMENT  IN  THE  VIRGINIA  LEGISLATURE  OF  1832 
TO  ABOLISH  SLAVERY  IN  THE  STATE 

THE  Southampton  Insurrection,  which  occurred  in 
August,  1831,  was  one  of  those  untoward  incidents  which 
so  often  marked  the  history  of  slavery.  Under  the  leader 
ship  of  one  Nat  Turner,  a  negro  preacher,  of  some  educa 
tion,  who  felt  that  he  had  been  called  of  God  to  deliver 
his  race  from  bondage,  the  negroes  attacked  the  whites 
at  night  and  before  the  assault  could  be  suppressed  fifty- 
seven  whites,  principally  women  and  children,  had  been 
killed.  This  deplorable  event  assumed  an  even  more 
portentous  aspect  when  it  was  realized  that  the  leader 
was  a  slave  to  whom  the  privilege  of  education  had  been 
accorded  and  that  one  of  his  lieutenants  was  a  free  negro. 
In  addition  there  existed  a  widespread  belief  among  the 
whites  that  influences  and  instigations  from  without  the 
state  were  responsible  for  the  insurrection. 

The  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  met  in  regular  session 
in  December,  1831,  and  the  effect  upon  the  popular  mind 
of  this  tragic  occurrence  was  evidenced  in  the  numerous 
petitions  presented  praying  for  the  removal  beyond  the 
state  of  all  free  negroes,  or  the  enactment  of  such  laws  as 
should  provide  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  The  institution 
itself,  the  feasibility  of  its  abolition,  the  status  of  the  free 
negroes,  the  danger  to  the  state  from  their  presence,  were 
thus  brought  before  the  Legislature.  It  was  a  body  con 
taining  many  able  men  but  elected  without  reference  to 

45 


46  LEADERS  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

this  great  subject,  and  with  no  previous  interchange  of 
views  or  formulation  of  plans  among  the  advocates 
of  reform.  The  discussions  which  followed  were  more 
notable  for  the  fierce  arraignment  of  the  institution  than 
for  the  presentation  of  practical  plans  for  its  abolition. 

Henry  Wilson,  in  his  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in 
America,  says  of  this  discussion: 

"It  was  one  of  the  ablest,  most  eloquent  and  brilliant 
debates  that  ever  took  place  in  the  Legislature  of  any  of 
the  states.  Most  of  those  who  participated  in  it  were 
young  and  rising  men  who  afterward  achieved  high  posi 
tions  and  commanding  influence."1 

Mr.  Ballagh  records  that: 

"  Day  after  day  multitudes  thronged  the  Capitol  to  hear 
the  speeches.  The  Assembly  in  its  zeal  for  the  discussion 
set  aside  all  prudential  considerations,  such  as  the  possible 
effect  of  incendiary  utterances  that  might  make  the  slave 
believe  his  lot  one  of  injustice  and  cruelty,  and  so  give 
him  the  excuse  of  a  revolt,  or  might  encourage  further 
aggressions  by  Northern  Abolitionists."2 

Thomas  Jefferson  Randolph,  Mr.  Jefferson's  grandson; 
Thomas  Marshall,  son  of  the  Chief  Justice;  James  Mc 
Dowell,  afterward  Congressman  and  Governor;  Charles  J. 
Faulkner,  afterward  Congressman  and  Minister  to  France, 
and  William  Ballard  Preston,  afterward  Congressman  and 
Secretary  of  the  Navy  in  President  Taylor's  Cabinet,  were 
among  the  leaders  of  the  anti-slavery  men,  and  some  idea 
may  be  formed  of  the  character  of  their  speeches  from  the 
extracts  hereinafter  cited. 

The  principal  discussion  revolved  around  the  report  of 

1Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America,  Wilson,  Vol.  I, 
p.  195. 

^History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  Ballagh,  p.  138. 


PLANS  PROPOSED  47 

a  committee  which  declared  "  that  it  is  inexpedient  for  the 
present  Legislature  to  make  any  legislative  enactment 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery/'  to  which  Mr.  Preston  moved 
the  substitution  of  the  word  "expedient"  for  "inex 
pedient/7  and  Mr.  Bryce  moved,  as  a  substitute  for  both, 
that  the  commonwealth  should  provide  for  the  immediate 
removal  of  the  negroes  now  free  and  those  who  may  here 
after  become  free  "believing  that  this  will  absorb  all  of 
our  present  means/7  By  a  vote  of  58  to  73  Mr.  Preston's 
amendment  was  defeated/  and  Mr.  Bryce's  substitute 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  65  to  58.2  In  line  with  this  declara 
tion,  the  House  thereupon  passed  a  bill  which  provided  by 
a  comprehensive  and  continuous  system  for  the  deporta 
tion  and  colonization  of  the  free  negroes  of  the  common 
wealth,  and  such  as  thereafter  might  become  free.  The 
measure  carried  an  appropriation  of  Thirty-five  Thousand 
Dollars  for  the  first  year  (1832)  and  Ninety  Thousand 
Dollars  for  the  year  1833  and  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
79  to  41 .3  In  urging  its  passage,  William  H.  Broadnax 
insisted  that  many  owners  "would  manumit  their  slaves 
if  means  for  their  removal  were  furnished  by  the  state, 
but  who  could  not  if  the  additional  burden  of  removal 
were  placed  upon  them."4  This  bill,  so  fraught  with 
far-reaching  consequences,  was  subsequently  defeated  in 
the  Senate  by  one  vote. 

Several  plans  for  the  gradual  emancipation  and  deporta 
tion  of  the  slaves  were  brought  forward  and  discussed, 
but  all  failed  of  enactment.  Thomas  R.  Dew  declares 
that,  "no  enlarged,  wise  or  practical  plan  of  operations 

^Journal  of  House  of  Delegates,  1832,  p.  109. 

2Idem,  p.  110. 

3Idem,  p.  158. 

^Virginian  History  of  African  Colonization,  Slaughter,  p.  48. 


48  THE  EFFECTS  OF  FAILURE 

was  proposed  by  the  Abolitionists."1  And  Mr.  Ballagh  says, 
that  "  will  was  not  wanting  but  method  unhappily  was."2 

The  failure  of  this  General  Assembly  to  adopt  any  plan 
of  emancipation  or  any  comprehensive  scheme  for  the 
deportation  of  the  free  negroes  already  in  the  state  had  a 
disastrous  effect  upon  the  attitude  of  thousands  of  Vir 
ginians  towards  slavery.  Despairing  of  relief  from  either 
of  these  sources  and  yet  facing  the  peril  of  which  the  Nat 
Turner  Insurrection  was  the  warning  sign,  her  lawmakers 
sought  in  repressive  legislation  to  nullify  the  dangers 
of  slave  insurrection.  Many  accepted  the  institution  as 
permanent  and  busied  themselves  marshalling  arguments 
in  vindication  of  its  rightfulness  and  in  refuting  with 
growing  bitterness  the  assaults  of  its  opponents. 

But  in  addition  to  the  Southampton  Massacre,  and  the 
failure  of  the  Legislature  to  enact  any  effective  legislation, 
the  contemporary  rise  of  the  Abolitionists  in  the  North 
came  as  an  even  more  powerful  factor  to  embarrass  the 
efforts  of  the  Virginia  emancipators.  Unlike  the  anti- 
slavery  men  of  former  years,  this  new  school  not  only 
attacked  the  institution  of  slavery  but  the  morality  of  slave 
holders  and  their  sympathizers.  In  their  fierce  arraign 
ment,  not  only  were  the  humane  and  considerate  linked 
in  infamy  with  the  cruel  and  intolerant,  but  the  whole 
population  of  the  slave-owning  states,  their  civilization 
and  their  morals  were  the  object  of  unrelenting  and  in 
cessant  assaults.  Thus  thousands  sincerely  desiring  the 
abolition  of  slavery  were  driven  to  silence  or  into  the  ranks 
of  its  apologists  in  the  widespread  and  indignant  determina 
tion  of  Virginians  to  resent  these  libels  upon  their  character 
and  defeat  these  attempts  to  excite  servile  insurrections. 

lAn  Essay  on  Slavery,  Thomas  R.  Dew,  1849,  p.  6. 
^History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  Ballagh,  p.  138. 


ABOLITIONISTS  AND  PRO-SLAVERY  MEN          49 

"What  have  we  done  to  her/'  said  the  Rev.  Nehemiah 
Adams  of  Boston,  "but  admonish,  threaten  and  indict 
her  before  God,  excommunicate  her,  stir  up  insurrection 
among  her  slaves,  endanger  her  homes,  make  her  Christians 
and  ministers  odious  in  other  lands/71 

From  this  period,  too,  may  be  noticed  the  gradual 
increase  in  the  number  of  pro-slavery  men  in  Virginia. 
This  element  did  not  justify  slavery  simply  because  of  the 
difficulties  and  dangers  attending  emancipation,  but  they 
asserted  that  the  institution  was  good  in  itself,  sanctioned 
by  religion,  a  blessing  to  the  blacks  and  essential  to  the 
well-being  of  the  whites.  The  growth  of  this  new  school 
in  its  aggressiveness  and  the  extreme  character  of  its 
utterances  kept  pace  with  the  like  development  of  the 
Abolitionists.  As  the  latter  denounced  slavery  as  "man- 
stealing" — and  slaveholders — as  "thieves,"  the  former 
marshalled  Bible  texts  to  show  the  divine  origin  and 
Heaven-approved  character  of  the  institution.  As  the 
Abolitionists  portrayed  the  "degrading"  and  "brutaliz 
ing"  effects  of  slavery  upon  the  character  of  slaveholding 
communities,  the  pro-slavery  men  pointed  to  the  moral 
and  civic  virtues  which  undoubtedly  existed  in  such 
communities,  and  claimed  that  these  very  virtues  were 
attributable  to  the  institution  of  slavery.  As  Abolitionists, 
relying  upon  the  insistence  that  slavery  was  a  "  monstrous 
oppression,"  justified  slave  insurrections  to  effect  freedom, 
the  pro-slavery  men  sought  to  drive  into  silence  their 
fellow  Virginians  of  anti-slavery  sentiments  because  any 
acknowledgment  that  it  was  illegal  and  that  the  condition 
of  the  slave  was  at  war  with  the  laws  of  natural  right 
warranted  the  slave  in  killing  his  master  to  secure  his 
freedom. 

*South  Side  View  of  Slavery,  Adams,  p.  127. 


50    THE  GROWTH  OF  PRO-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS 

Thus,  from  1833  on  to  the  time  of  the  war,  the  pro- 
slavery  advocates  grew  in  influence  and  aggressiveness, 
though  what  proportion  of  the  population  of  Virginia 
they  represented  it  is  impossible  to  determine.  Their 
extreme  utterances  undoubtedly  gave  them  great  promi 
nence,  as  the  march  of  events,  in  like  manner,  augmented 
their  power.  The  sentiments  of  the  anti-slavery  men  found 
little  place  in  the  turmoil  of  the  times.  Their  position  was 
strongly  analogous  to  that  of  the  majority  of  the  Northern 
people,  who,  in  the  midst  of  the  war  cries  of  the  Abolition 
ists,  continued  in  silence  their  business  pursuits. 


IX 

THE  NORTHERN  ABOLITIONISTS  AND  THEIR  REACTIONARY 

INFLUENCE  UPON  ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENT 

IN  VIRGINIA 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON  RANDOLPH  was  the  foremost  advocate 
of  gradual  emancipation  in  the  Virginia  Legislature  of 
1832.  In  a  pamphlet  printed  in  1870  reviewing  political 
conditions  in  Virginia  he  makes  the  following  statement 
with  reference  to  the  subject  of  emancipation  and  the 
influences  which  hindered  its  accomplishment  after  the 
year  1833: 

"After  the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature  in  1833,  the 
question  was  discussed  before  the  people  fairly  and  squarely, 
as  one  of  the  abolition  of  slavery.  I  was  re-elected  on 
that  ground  in  my  county.  The  feeling  extended  rapidly 
from  that  time  in  Virginia,  Kentucky  and  Missouri  until 
Northern  abolitionism  reared  its  head.  Southern  aboli 
tion  was  reform  and  an  appeal  to  the  master;  Northern 
abolition  was  revolution  and  an  appeal  to  the  slave.  One 
was  peaceful  and  the  other  mutually  destructive  of  both 
races  by  a  servile  insurrection.  The  Southern  people 
feared  to  trust  to  the  intervention  of  persons  themselves 
exempt  by  position  from  the  imagined  dangers  of  the 
transition."1 

George  Tucker,  Professor  of  Political  Economy,  in  the 
University  of  Virginia,  in  his  work,  The  Progress  of  the 
United  States  in  Population  and  Wealth,  published  in 
1843,  referring  to  the  subject,  writes: 

lSee  printed  pamphlet  T.  J.  Randolph,  September  25th,  1870, 
on  file  with  Virginia  Historical  Society. 

51 


52  VIEWS  OF  PROMINENT  VIRGINIANS 

"This  is  not  the  place  for  assailing  or  defending  slavery; 
but  it  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  the  efforts  of 
Abolitionists  have  hitherto  made  the  people  in  the  slave- 
holding  states  cling  to  it  more  tenaciously.  Those  efforts 
are  viewed  by  them  as  an  intermeddling  in  their  domestic 
concerns  that  is  equally  unwarranted  by  the  comity  due 
to  sister  states,  and  to  the  solemn  pledges  of  the  Federal 
compact.  In  the  general  indignation  which  is  thus  excited, 
the  arguments  in  favor  of  negro  emancipation,  once  open 
and  urgent,  have  been  completely  silenced,  and  its  ad 
vocates  among  the  slaveholders,  who  have  not  changed 
their  sentiments,  find  it  prudent  to  conceal  them.  .  .  . 
Such  have  been  the  fruits  of  the  zeal  of  Northern  Aboli 
tionists  in  those  states  in  which  slavery  prevails;  and  the 
fable  of  the  Wind  and  the  Sun  never  more  forcibly  illus 
trated  the  difference  between  gentle  and  violent  means 
in  influencing  men's  wills."1 

In  1847,  Dr.  Henry  Ruffner,  President  of  Washington 
College,  delivered  an  address  upon  the  subject  of  slavery 
in  Virginia  which  attracted  widespread  attention.  In 
this  speech,  made  in  the  midst  of  the  growing  controversy, 
he  refers  to  the  reactionary  influence  of  the  Abolitionists 
as  follows : 

"But  this  unfavorable  change  of  sentiment  is  due 
chiefly  to  the  fanatical  violence  of  those  Northern  anti- 
slavery  men  usually  called  Abolitionists.  .  .  .  They  have 
not,  by  honourable  means,  liberated  a  single  slave,  and 
they  never  will  by  such  a  course  of  procedure  as  they 
have  pursued.  On  the  contrary  they  have  created  new 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  all  judicious  schemes  of  emancipa 
tion  by  prejudicing  the  minds  of  slaveholders,  and  by 

^Progress  of  Population  and  Wealth,  Tucker,  p.  108.  Note — 
The  author  concludes  his  review  of  slavery  in  Virginia  by  saying: 
"As  the  same  decline  in  the  value  of  labor  once  liberated  the 
villeins,  or  slaves,  of  western  Europe,  and  will  liberate  the  serfs 
of  Russia,  so  must  it  put  an  end  to  slavery  in  the  United  States, 
should  it  be  terminated  in  no  other  way." 


VIEWS  OF  CHANNING  53 

compelling  us  to  combat  their  false  principles  and  rash 
schemes  in  our  rear;  whilst  we  are  facing  the  opposition  of 
men  and  the  natural  difficulties  of  the  case  in  our  front."1 

If  it  be  thought,  that  Mr.  Randolph,  Professor  Tucker, 
and  Dr.  Ruffner  were  influenced  by  their  environment 
and  a  desire  to  shift  from  the  people  of  Virginia  to  the 
Abolitionists  responsibility  for  the  growth  in  the  state 
of  reactionary  sentiments,  with  regard  to  slavery,  it  may 
be  well  to  quote  the  contemporary  views  of  prominent 
anti-slavery  men  of  the  North. 

Dr.  William  Ellery  Channing,  writing  in  1835,  said: 

"The  adoption  of  the  common  system  of  agitation  by 
the  Abolitionists  has  not  been  justified  by  success.  From 
the  beginning  it  created  alarm  in  the  considerate  and 
strengthened  the  sympathies  of  the  free  states  with  the 
slaveholder.  It  made  converts  of  a  few  individuals  but 
alienated  multitudes. 

"Its  influence  at  the  South  has  been  almost  wholly  evil. 
It  has  stirred  up  bitter  passions  and  a  fierce  fanaticism 
which  have  shut  every  ear  and  every  heart  against  its 
arguments  and  persuasions.  These  effects  are  more  to 
be  deplored  because  the  hope  of  freedom  to  the  slaves 
lies  chiefly  in  the  disposition  of  his  master.  The  Aboli 
tionist  proposed  indeed  to  convert  the  slaveholders;  and 
for  this  reason  he  approached  them  with  vituperation 
and  exhausted  upon  them  the  vocabulary  of  reproach. 
And  he  has  reaped  as  he  sowed  .  .  .  Thus,  with  good  pur 
pose,  nothing  seems  to  have  been  gained.  Perhaps  (though 
I  am  anxious  to  repel  the  thought)  something  has  been  lost 
to  the  cause  of  freedom  and  humanity."2 

In  1837,  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  adopted  a  series  of 
resolutions  of  a  pro-slavery  character  reprobating  the 
methods  of  the  Abolitionists.  Against  the  resolutions 

lThe  Ruffner  Pamphlet,  Lexington,  1847. 

*The  Works  of  William  E.  Channing,  1889,  American  Unitarian 
Society,  p.  735. 


54  VIEWS  OF  LINCOLN 

as  adopted,  Abraham  Lincoln  prepared  a  memorandum 
and,  together  with  Daniel  Stone,  a  fellow  member  of  the 
body,  had  the  same  spread  upon  its  journal  as  a  more 
accurate  expression  of  their  views.  After  referring  to  the 
resolutions,  the  paper  declares: 

"They  believe  that  the  institution  of  slavery  is  founded 
on  both  injustice  and  bad  policy,  but  that  the  promulga 
tion  of  abolition  doctrines  tends  rather  to  increase  than 
abate  its  evils."1 

This  declaration  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  at  once  a  protest 
and  a  prophecy. 

It  is  sometimes  urged  that  because  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
youth,  at  this  time,  his  estimate  of  the  injuries  wrought 
by  the  "promulgation  of  abolition  doctrines"  is  not  en 
titled  to  much  weight.  It  is  true  that  he  was  then  in 
his  twenty-ninth  year.  A  quotation  from  an  even  more 
notable  deliverance,  made  fifteen  years  later,  will  show 


following  is  a  full  text  of  the  paper  : 

"Resolutions  upon  the  subject  of  domestic  slavery  having 
passed  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly  at  its  present  ses 
sion,  the  undersigned  hereby  protest  against  the  passing  of  the  same. 

They  believe  that  the  institution  of  slavery  is  founded  on  both 
injustice  and  bad  policy,  but  that  the  promulgation  of  abolition 
doctrines  tends  rather  to  increase  than  abate  its  evils. 

They  believe  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  no 
power  under  the  constitution  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of 
slavery  in  the  different  states. 

They  believe  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  the 
power  under  the  constitution  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  but  that  the  power  ought  not  to  be  exercised  unless  at 
the  request  of  the  people  of  the  District. 

The  difference  between  these  opinions  and  those  contained  in 
the  above  resolutions,  is  their  reason  for  entering  this  protest. 
(Signed)  DAN  STONE, 

A.  LINCOLN." 

Representatives  from  the  County  of  Sangamon. 
(Abraham  Lincoln,  A  History,  N.  &  H.,  Vol.  I,  p.  140.) 


VIEWS  OF  WEBSTER  55 

that  reflection  and  observation  served  to  confirm  his  con 
victions  of  the  earlier  date.  In  his  eulogy  on  Henry 
Clay,  delivered  in  the  State  House,  at  Springfield,  Illinois, 
July  16th,  1852,  he  said: 

"Cast  into  life  when  slavery  was  already  widely  spread 
and  deeply  seated,  he  did  not  perceive,  as  I  think  no  wise 
man  has  perceived,  how  it  could  be  at  once  eradicated 
without  producing  a  greater  evil  even  to  the  cause  of  human 
liberty  itself.  His  feeling  and  his  judgment,  therefore, 
ever  led  him  to  oppose  both  extremes  of  opinion  on  the 
subject.  Those  who  would  shiver  into  fragments  the 
Union  of  these  states,  tear  to  tatters  its  now  venerated 
constitution,  and  even  burn  the  last  copy  of  the  Bible, 
rather  than  slavery  should  continue  a  single  hour,  together 
with  all  their  more  halting  sympathizers,  have  received, 
and  are  receiving  their  just  execration;  and  the  name  and 
opinion  and  influence  of  Mr.  Clay  are  fully  and,  as  I  trust, 
effectually  and  enduringly  arrayed  against  them."1 

This  estimate  of  Mr.  Lincoln  had  already  been  anticipated 
by  that  of  Mr.  Webster  who,  in  his  speech  of  March  7th, 
1850,  in  the  United  States  Senate  made  a  special  reference 
to  the  disastrous  influence  exerted  by  the  Abolitionists 
upon  the  cause  of  emancipation  in  Virginia. 

"Public  opinion/'  he  said,  "which  in  Virginia  had 
begun  to  be  exhibited  against  slavery  and  was  opening  out 
for  the  discussion  of  the  question,  drew  back  and  shut 
itself  up  in  its  castle.  I  would  like  to  know  whether 
anybody  in  Virginia  can  now  talk  openly  as  Mr.  Randolph, 
Governor  McDowell  and  others  talked  in  1832,  and  sent 
their  remarks  to  the  press?  We  all  know  the  facts  and  we 
all  know  the  cause;  and  everything  that  these  agitating 
people  have  done  has  been  not  to  enlarge  but  to  restrain, 

1  Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H, 
Vol.  I,  p.  174. 


56  VIEWS   OF  DOUGLAS 

not  to  set  free,  but  to  bind  the  faster  the  slave  population 
of  the  South."1 

Stephen  A.  Douglas,  speaking  at  Bloomington,  Illinois, 
July  16,  1859,  said: 

"  There  is  but  one  possible  way  in  which  slavery  can  be 
abolished  and  that  is  by  leaving  the  state  according  to  the 
principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  perfectly  free  to 
form  and  regulate  its  institutions  in  its  own  way.  That 
was  the  principle  upon  which  this  Republic  was  founded. 
.  .  .  Under  its  operations  slavery  disappeared  from  .  .  . 
six  of  the  twelve  original  slaveholding  states;  and  this 
gradual  system  of  emancipation  went  on  quietly,  peace 
fully  and  steadily  so  long  as  we  in  the  free  states  minded 
our  own  business  and  left  our  neighbors  alone.  But  the 
moment  the  abolition  societies  were  organized  through 
out  the  North,  preaching  a  violent  crusade  against  slavery 
in  the  Southern  States,  this  combination  necessarily  caused 
a  counter-combination  in  the  South,  and  a  sectional  line 
was  drawn  which  was  a  barrier  to  any  further  emancipa 
tion.  Bear  in  mind  that  emancipation  has  not  taken  place 
in  any  one  state  since  the  Free-soil  Party  was  organized 
as  a  political  party  in  this  country.  .  .  .  The  moment  the 
North  proclaimed  itself  the  determined  master  of  the  South, 
that  moment  the  South  combined  to  resist  the  attack, 
and  thus  sectional  parties  were  formed  and  gradual  eman 
cipation  ceased  in  all  the  Northern  slaveholding  states.7'2 

In  this  speech,  Mr.  Douglas  not  only  points  out  the 
methods  by  which  slavery  had  been  abolished  in  six  of  the 
twelve  original  slaveholding  states,  but  he  bears  testimony, 
like  his  great  contemporaries,  to  the  reactionary  influence 
resulting  from  the  attitude  of  the  Northern  Abolitionists. 

This  estimate  of  Senator  Douglas  was  reaffirmed  in  the 
frank  declaration  of  Thomas  Ewing,  of  Ohio,  who,  speak 
ing  in  the  Peace  Conference,  at  Washington,  February, 

Webster's  Great  Speeches,  Whipple,  p.  619. 
^Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  Columbus,  1860:  p.  31. 


VIEWS  OF  LUNT  AND  CURTIS  57 

1861,  declared:  "The  North  has  taken  the  business  of 
abolition  into  its  own  hands  and  from  the  day  she  did  so 
we  hear  no  more  of  abolition  in  Virginia.  This  was  but  the 
natural  effect  of  the  cause/'1 

If  it  be  urged  that  the  views  of  Channing,  Lincoln, 
Webster,  Douglas  and  Ewing  were  unfair  in  their  estimate 
of  the  reactionary  influence  of  the  Abolitionists,  because 
of  the  temper  of  the  times  in  which  they  lived,  it  may  be 
well  to  quote  the  conclusions  of  publicists  not  so  situated. 
Mr.  George  Lunt,  of  Boston,  writing  in  December,  1865, 
says: 

"After  the  years  of  1820-21,  during  which  that  great 
struggle  which  resulted  in  what  is  called  the  Missouri 
Compromise  was  most  active  and  came  to  its  conclusion, 
the  States  of  Virginia,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  were 
earnestly  engaged  in  practical  movements  for  the  gradual 
emancipation  of  their  slaves.  This  movement  continued 
until  it  was  arrested  by  the  aggressions  of  the  Abolitionists 
upon  their  voluntary  action."2 

Mr.  George  Ticknor  Curtis,  of  Boston,  writing  in  1883, 
after  describing  the  discussions  in  the  General  Assembly 
of  Virginia  in  1831-32,  and  stating  that  Thomas  Jefferson 
Randolph,  the  leader  of  the  movement  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery,  was  re-elected  in  1833  from  Albemarle,  one 
of  the  largest  slaveholding  counties  in  the  state,  because 
of  his  position,  declares: 

"But  in  the  meantime  came  suddenly  the  intelligence 
of  what  was  doing  at  the  North.  It  came  in  an  alarming 
aspect  for  the  peace  and  security  for  the  whole  South; 
since  it  could  not  be  possible  that  strangers  should  combine 
together  to  assail  the  slaveholder  as  a  sinner  and  to  demand 
his  instant  admission  of  guilt,  without  arousing  fears  of 

^Proceedings  of  Peace  Convention,  Crittenden,  p.  142. 
*The  Origin  of  the  Late  War,  Lunt,  1865,  p.  33. 


58  VIEWS  OF  ROOSEVELT  AND  SMITH 

the  most  dangerous  consequences  for  the  safety  of  Southern 
homes,  as  well  as  intense  indignation  against  such  an 
unwarrantable  interference.  From  that  time  forth  eman 
cipation  whether  immediate  or  gradual  could  not  be  con 
sidered  in  Virginia  or  anywhere  else  in  the  South."1 

As  representative  of  a  later  generation  and  voicing 
sentiments  of  one  more  removed  from  the  period  of  con 
troversy,  the  views  of  Theodore  Roosevelt  are  of  value. 
Writing  in  1898,  he  says: 

"  In  1833  the  abolition  societies  of  the  North  came  into 
prominence;  they  had  been  started  a  couple  of  years  previ 
ously.  Black  slavery  was  such  a  grossly  anachronistic 
and  un-American  form  of  evil  that  it  is  difficult  to  discuss 
calmly  the  efforts  to  abolish  it  and  to  remember  that 
many  of  these  efforts  were  calculated  to  do  and  actually 
did  more  harm  than  good.  .  .  .  The  cause  of  the  Abolition 
ists  has  had  such  a  halo  shed  around  it  by  the  course 
of  events,  which  they  themselves  in  reality  did  very 
little  to  shape,  that  it  has  been  usual  to  speak  of  them 
with  absurdly  exaggerated  praise.  Their  courage  and, 
for  the  most  part,  their  sincerity,  cannot  be  too  highly 
spoken  of,  but  their  share  in  abolishing  slavery  was  far 
less  than  has  commonly  been  represented;  any  single,  non- 
abolitionist  politician,  like  Lincoln  or  Seward,  did  more 
than  all  the  professional  Abolitionists  combined  really  to 
bring  about  its  destruction/72 

Writing  still  later,  Mr.  William  Henry  Smith,  of  Ohio, 
in  his  book,  A  Political  History  of  Slavery,  alluding  to 
the  work  of  the  Abolitionists,  says : 

"What  befell  is  what  has  always  been  the  experience, 
which  must  needs  be  ever  the  experience  of  society  when 
men  '  encounter  with  such  bitter  tongues/  when  full  play 

lLife  of  James  Buchanan,  Curtis,  Vol.  II,  p.  278. 
^Thomas  H.  Benton,  Roosevelt,  p.  141. 


EMANCIPATION  AND  COLONIZATION  59 

is  given  to  passion,  prejudice  and  all  uncharitableness. 
.  .  .  After  fifteen  years  of  this  commotion,  the  testimony 
of  the  judicious  was  'that  the  tendency  to  general  emanci 
pation  in  the  Border  States  had  been  checked,  and  that 
the  Abolitionists  had  done  more  to  rivet  the  chains  of  the 
slave  and  to  fasten  the  curse  of  slavery  upon  the  country 
than  all  the  pro-slavery  men  in  the  world  had  done  or 
could  do  in  half  a  century.'"1 

Despite,  however,  the  growing  embarrassments  of  the 
situation,  there  remained  with  the  people  of  Virginia  the 
conviction  that  in  the  dispersion  or  colonization  beyond 
her  borders,  of  a  substantial  part  of  her  negro  population, 
lay  the  surest  road  to  ultimate  emancipation  and  relief 
from  the  racial  problems  incident  to  slavery.  The  practice, 
therefore,  of  emancipation  by  deeds  and  wills  continued, 
and  individually  and  by  concerted  action,  the  various 
schemes  for  colonization  were  fostered  and  encouraged. 
The  Legislature  at  its  session,  1833,  passed  a  bill  appro 
priating  $18,000.00  per  annum,  for  a  period  of  five  years  to 
assist  in  transporting  and  subsisting  "free  persons  of  color 
who  may  desire  to  migrate  from  Virginia  to  Liberia."2 

This  appropriation,  as  we  shall  see,  was  followed  by 
others  of  larger  amounts  to  further  colonization;  and,  in 
no  state  of  the  Union,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
Maryland,  did  the  cause  receive  greater  assistance,  in 
money  and  sympathy,  than  in  Virginia. 

1A  Political  History  of  Slavery,  William  Henry  Smith,  1903,  Vol. 
I,  pp.  40-41. 

^Virginian  History  of  African  Colonization,  Slaughter,  p.  67. 


NEGRO  COLONIZATION — STATE  AND  NATIONAL 

THE  idea  of  colonization  seems  to  have  originated  with 
Mr.  Jefferson,  who,  in  1777,  submitted  a  plan  to  a  com 
mittee  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia. 

In  1787,  Dr.  William  Thornton  published  an  address 
to  the  free  negroes  of  the  whole  country  offering  to  lead 
them  in  person  back  to  Africa. 

In  December,  1800,  the  General  Assembly  passed  a 
resolution  requesting  the  Governor  to  communicate  with 
the  President  of  the  United  States  with  the  view  of  pur 
chasing  lands  beyond  the  limits  of  Virginia  for  colonization 
purposes.  A  considerable  correspondence  ensued  between 
Mr.  Monroe,  the  Governor,  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  President. 

Nothing  practical,  however,  resulted  from  these  negotia 
tions,  though  on  the  27th  of  December,  1804,  Mr.  Jefferson 
wrote  Governor  Page :  "  I  beg  you  to  be  assured  that, 
having  the  object  of  the  House  of  Delegates  sincerely  at 
heart,  I  will  keep  it  under  my  constant  attention,  and 
omit  no  occasion  which  may  occur  of  giving  it  effect."1 

In  January,  1805,  the  Legislature  passed  another  resolu 
tion  requesting  Virginia's  representatives  in  Congress  to 
use  every  effort  to  secure  a  portion  of  the  territory  of 
Louisiana  for  the  colonization  "of  such  people  of  color 
as  have  been  or  shall  be  emancipated  in  Virginia." 

The  difficulties  with  France  and  England  at  this  time 
prevented  further  prosecution  of  the  subject,  but,  after 

^Virginian  History  of  African  Colonization,  Slaughter,  pp.  1-6. 

60 


EARLY  SCHEMES  OF  COLONIZATION  61 

the  termination  of  the  war  between  the  United  States  and 
England,  a  resolution  was  passed  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  Virginia,  in  December,  1816,  requesting  the  Governor 
to  correspond  with  the  President  with  a  view  of  acquiring 
upon  the  coast  of  Africa,  or  at  some  point  in  the  United 
States,  an  asylum  "  for  such  persons  of  color  as  are  now 
free  and  desire  the  same,"  or  "that  may  hereafter  be 
emancipated  in  Virginia." 

About  the  time  of  this  action  of  the  Virginia  Legislature 
there  assembled  at  Washington  on  the  21st  of  December 
1816,  a  body  of  prominent  citizens  from  various  states, 
who  effected  a  tentative  organization,  from  which  resulted 
the  American  Colonization  Society.  Over  this  meeting 
Henry  Clay  presided,  and  among  the  notable  persons 
present  were  Daniel  Webster,  Bushrod  Washington  and 
John  Randolph  of  Roanoke.  The  Rev.  Robert  Finley, 
of  New  Jersey,  and  Mr.  E.  B.  Cal dwell,  at  that  time  Clerk 
of  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington,  were  especially 
active  in  bringing  about  the  assemblage.  Charles  Fenton 
Mercer,  of  Virginia,  and  Francis  Scott  Key,  of  Maryland, 
were  also  among  the  most  zealous  friends  of  the  enterprise. 
In  addition  to  Randolph  and  Washington,  Bishop  William 
Meade,  Rev.  William  H.  Wilmer,  John  Taylor,  Edmund  I. 
Lee  and  other  Virginians  were  also  present.  Mr.  Clay 
has  left  upon  record  that  "the  original  conception  of 
the  project  is  to  be  traced  to  a  date  long  anterior,"  to  the 
meeting  and  that  "  the  State  of  Virginia,  always  prominent 
in  works  of  benevolence,  prior  to  the  formation  of  the 
American  Colonization  Society  .  .  .  had  expressed  her 
approbation  of  the  plan  of  colonization."1 

On  the  first  of  January,  1817,  the  permanent  organiza- 

lThe  African  Repository  and  Colonial  Journal — Vol.  VI,  No.  1, 
p.  13. 


62  AMERICAN  COLONIZATION  SOCIETY 

tion  of  the  society  was  effected  by  the  selection  of  Mr. 
Justice  Bushrod  Washington,  of  Virginia,  as  President, 
a  position  which  he  held  for  thirteen  years.  Judge  Wash 
ington  was  succeeded  by  Charles  Carroll,  of  Carrollton, 
James  Madison,  Henry  Clay  and  John  H.  B.  Latrobe,  the 
last  named  holding  office  until  after  the  Civil  War. 

The  Society  having  been  organized,  immediate  steps 
were  taken  to  acquire  land  upon  the  coast  of  Africa  upon 
which  to  establish  the  colony.  For  this  purpose  Samuel  J. 
Mills,  so  well  known  and  venerated  for  his  missionary 
labors,  and  Ebenezer  Burgess  were  sent  to  Africa,  the 
money  to  defray  their  expenses  being  raised  by  Charles 
Fenton  Mercer  and  Bishop  Meade,  of  Virginia.1  The  report 
of  these  commissioners  established  the  practicability  of 
securing  the  necessary  land  on  the  coast  of  Africa  and 
establishing  the  emigrants  in  their  new  home.  The 
Society,  however,  was  without  sufficient  means  for  the 
successful  initiation  of  its  great  work  and  possessed  no 
relation  to  the  government,  state  or  National.  By  a 
fortuitous  train  of  circumstances  and  the  zeal  of  certain 
of  its  members,  among  whom  Virginians  bore  an  active 
part,  all  of  these  objects  were  in  a  measure  attained. 

Under  the  terms  of  the  Federal  statute  prohibiting  the 
foreign  slave  trade  it  was  provided  that  any  slave  whose 
importation  was  attempted  in  violation  of  the  act  should 
be  seized  by  the  authorities  of  the  state  where  the  importa 
tion  occurred,  and  disposed  of  at  its  pleasure.  The  State 
of  Georgia  had,  accordingly,  acquired  possession  of  a 
number  of  imported  negroes  and  had  advertised  them  for 
sale  at  Milledgeville,  May  4,  1819.  Such  an  event  and  such 
a  policy  would  have  defeated  the  statute,  one  of  whose 
objects  was  to  prevent  the  increase  of  the  slave  population. 
^Liberia  Bulletin.  No.  16— February,  1900,  p.  21. 


FOUNDING  OF  COLONY  OF  LIBERIA  63 

Learning  of  these  facts,  Bishop  Meade,  of  Virginia,  was 
sent  as  the  representative  of  the  Colonization  Society,  to 
Georgia,  where  he  secured  the  release  of  the  negroes 
advertised  to  be  sold,  upon  condition  that  the  Society 
would  reimburse  the  state  for  the  costs  incurred  in  their 
maintenance.1  George  Washington  Parke  Custis,  of  Vir 
ginia,  offered  an  island  near  Cape  Charles,  Virginia,  as 
a  place  of  refuge  until  they  could  be  transported  to  Africa.2 
Knowledge  of  the  foregoing  facts  induced  Charles  Fenton 
Mercer  and  John  Floyd,  of  Virginia,  to  present  to  Con 
gress,  of  which  they  were  members,  a  bill  which  became 
a  law  in  1819,  whereby  all  negroes  imported  since  the 
passage  of  the  act  should  be  returned  to  their  own  country, 
appointing  agents  upon  the  coast  of  Africa  to  receive  them; 
and  appropriating  $100,000.00  to  carry  this  law  into 
effect.  President  Monroe  was  zealous  in  enforcing  the 
provisions  of  this  law,  and  acted  in  cordial  co-operation 
with  the  Colonization  Society  to  effectuate  its  purposes. 
Under  the  provisions  of  the  act,  territory  was  acquired 
upon  the  coast  of  Africa,  and  there  the  colony  of  Liberia 
was  established.  In  1824,  in  recognition  of  Mr.  Monroe's 
services,  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony  named  their  capital 
Monrovia. 

In  the  great  work  of  the  American  Colonization  Society, 
the  leading  people  of  Virginia  took  a  most  active  and 
sympathetic  interest.  This  was  evinced  in  the  organiza 
tion  of  Auxiliary  Societies  at  Richmond,  Norfolk,  Fred- 
ericksburg,  Petersburg,  Alexandria,  Lynchburg,  Wheeling, 
Charlestown,  Shepherdstown,  Hampton  and  Harper's 
Ferry  and  in  the  Counties  of  Isle  of  Wight,  Sussex,  Albe- 
marle,  King  William,  Dinwiddie,  Amherst,  Berkeley, 

Memoir  of  Bishop  Meade,  Johns,  1867,  p.  120. 
^History  of  United  States,  McMaster,  Vol.  IV,  p.  565. 


64  VIRGINIA'S   EFFORTS  AT  COLONIZATION 

Nansemond,  Buckingham,  Nelson,  Fluvanna,  Frederick, 
Augusta,  Kanawha,  Powhatan,  Loudoun,  Rockingham, 
Mecklenburg,  Campbell,  and  others.  The  officials  of 
these  Societies  numbered  many  of  the  most  prominent 
men  of  Virginia;  John  Marshall,  then  Chief  Justice  of  the 
United  States,  was  President  of  the  Richmond  branch. 

The  Virginia  Auxiliary  Societies  collected  money  by 
private  subscription,  and  facilitated  in  every  way  the 
transportation  of  such  free  negroes  as  desired  to  emigrate. 
In  1826,  upon  the  petition  of  the  Societies,  the  Legislature 
of  Virginia  made  its  first  appropriation  to  assist  in  their 
work.  In  addition  to  those  in  Virginia,  Auxiliary  Societies 
were  organized  in  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland  and  Kentucky. 

In  1828  the  Colonization  Society  of  Virginia  was  estab 
lished  and  thereafter  Virginians  directed  their  energies 
largely  through  this  Virginia  organization.  John  Marshall 
was  elected  President  of  the  Virginia  Society,  and  James 
Madison,  James  Monroe,  John  Tyler  and  William  H. 
Broadnax,  were  among  its  Vice-Presidents. 

By  an  act  passed  in  1850  the  General  Assembly  of 
Virginia  appropriated  the  sum  of  $30,000.00  per  annum 
for  five  years  for  the  transportation  and  sustenance  of  free 
negroes  who  desired  to  emigrate.  Certain  qualifications 
of  the  measure  limited  its  effectiveness,  and  in  1853, 
the  Virginia  Colonization  Society  secured  its  repeal  and 
the  enactment  of  a  new  law  appropriating  $30,000.00  per 
annum  for  five  years,  with  much  more  liberal  provisions 
as  to  the  method  of  its  expenditure.  Private  benevolence 
supplemented  the  state.  The  reports  of  the  Society  show 
that  during  the  years  1850-51-52  private  contributions 
from  the  people  of  Virginia  aggregated  over  $2 1, 000. 00. l 

lVirginian  History  of  African  Colonization,  Slaughter,  p.  100. 


ABOLITIONISTS  AND  PRO-SLAVERY  MEN          65 

The  work  of  the  Society  was  endorsed  by  the  churches 
and  more  and  more  it  assumed  the  character  of  a  Christian 
enterprise.  It  was  commended  because  it  brought  relief 
to  Virginia,  blessings  to  the  ex-slaves,  greater  hope  of 
freedom  to  those  still  in  bondage,  and  carried  Christianity 
and  civilization  to  Africa.  Among  the  first  of  many 
white  men  who  gave  their  lives  to  the  cause  of  colonization 
was  Samuel  J.  Mills,  who  died  at  sea  on  his  way  home 
from  Africa.  Mills  was  the  leader  of  the  band  of  students 
at  Williams  College,  Massachusetts,  so  well  known  for  their 
missionary  zeal  and  labours,  and  hence  has  a  double  claim 
upon  our  gratitude. 

The  problems  and  difficulties  of  colonization,  admittedly 
great,  were  seriously  augmented  by  the  active  opposition 
of  the  extreme  pro-slavery  men  at  the  South  and  the 
Abolitionists  at  the  North.  Each  of  these  two  antagonistic 
forces  strenuously  opposed  the  work  of  colonization,  the 
first  because  it  facilitated  eventual  emancipation,  the 
second,  among  other  reasons,  because  it  rendered  condi 
tions  more  tolerable  and  thus  postponed  the  day  of  the 
universal  and  immediate  abolition  of  slavery. 

In  addition  to  the  colonizations  made  through  the  aid 
of  the  colonization  societies,  many  Virginia  slaveholders 
emancipated  their  slaves  and  at  their  own  expense  colonized 
them  in  some  of  the  free  states.  A  few  instances  will 
illustrate  the  custom  and  the  difficulties  often  encountered 
by  these  emancipators  and  their  ex-slaves. 


XI 

INSTANCES  OF  COLONIZATIONS  BY  INDIVIDUAL 
SLAVEHOLDERS 

BY  the  will  of  Samuel  Gist,  his  slaves  were  emancipated 
and  William  F.  Wickham  and  Carter  B.  Page,  of  Rich 
mond,  appointed  trustees  to  acquire  land  in  some  one  of 
the  free  states  on  which  to  provide  homes  for  the  newly 
manumitted  freedmen.  Accordingly,  these  trustees  pur 
chased  two  tracts  of  land  in  Brown  County,  Ohio,  one 
containing  one  thousand  and  the  other  twelve  hundred 
acres  at  a  cost  of  $4400.00.' 

In  1819,  the  freedmen,  consisting  of  one  hundred  and 
thirteen  from  Hanover  County  and  one  hundred  and  fifty 
from  Goochland  and  Amherst  Counties,  were  transported 
to  Ohio  and  settled  on  the  lands  purchased,  as  above  in 
dicated,  by  the  trustees. 

The  facts  are  meagre  with  respect  to  the  reception 
accorded  these  negroes  and  the  measure  of  success  which 
attended  the  colonization.  From  the  best  information 
obtainable,  it  seems  that  they  were  treated  in  no  very 
friendly  manner  and  that,  in  time,  the  negroes  lost  most  of 
the  lands  provided  for  them  by  their  former  owner. 

Edward  Coles,  of  Albemarle  County,  inherited  from  his 
father  a  large  number  of  slaves.  Determining  to  give 
them  their  freedom,  he  conducted  them  in  April,  1819,  to 
Illinois,  where  he  established  them  in  their  own  homes 

»See  Record  of  Deeds,  Vol.  A.,  p.  230,  Recorder's  Office,  Brown 
County,  Ohio. 

66 


INSTANCES  OF  COLONIZATION  67 

near  the  town  of  Edwardsville,  giving  to  each  head  of  a 
family  a  tract  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land.1 
Mr.  Coles,  like  many  other  Virginians,  who  attempted  a 
like"  emancipation,  not  only  incurred  the  great  pecuniary 
loss  resulting  from  the  liberation  of  his  slaves  and  the  ex 
penses  of  their  removal  and  establishment,  but  he  incurred 
the  ill  will  and  opposition  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  state  in 
which  they  settled. 

The  biographers  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay, 
referring  to  the  attitude  of  the  people  of  Illinois  towards 
free  negroes,  record: 

"Even  Governor  Coles,  the  public-spirited  and  popular 
politician,  was  indicted  and  severely  fined  for  having 
brought  his  own  freedmen  into  the  state  and  having 
assisted  them  in  establishing  themselves  around  him  upon 
farms  of  their  own."2 

Mr.  Coles  was  a  neighbor  and  friend  of  Jefferson,  Madison 
and  Monroe.  He  was  Madison's  private  secretary  and 
was  appointed  by  President  Monroe  Registrar  of  the  Land. 
Office  at  Edwardsville,  111.,  in  March,  1819,  a  position 
of  influence  and  importance.  Three  years  later  he  was 
elected  Governor  of  the  state  and  his  career  as  such  was 
notable  for  the  great  part  he  bore  in  defeating  the  move 
ment  to  change  the  state  constitution  of  Illinois  so  as 
to  permit  the  introduction  and  maintenance  of  slavery 
within  that  state.  In  1832  Governor  Coles  removed  to 
Philadelphia  where  he  lived  until  his  death.  When  Vir 
ginia  seceded,  his  son,  Roberts  Coles,  volunteered  in  her 
service  and  was  killed  at  the  Battle  of  Roanoke  Island. 

^Sketch  of  Edward  Coles,  Washburne,  pp.  47-52. 

^Abraham  Lincoln,  A  History,  N.  &  H.,  Vol.  I,  p.  145. 

(Note.  The  fine  imposed  upon  Governor  Coles  was  subsequently 
remitted  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  because  the  law  under  which 
he  was  fined  had  not  been  published  at  the  date  of  his  offense.) 


68  INSTANCES  OF  COLONIZATION 

By  his  will,  admitted  to  probate  on  the  20th  of  Novem 
ber,  1826,  John  Ward,  Sr.,  of  Pittsylvania,  emancipated 
all  of  his  slaves,  giving  to  each  of  them  over  fifteen  years 
of  age  twenty  dollars,  except  to  certain  enumerated  ones, 
to  whom  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  each 
was  bequeathed.1  In  April,  1827,  these  freedmen,  eman 
cipated  under  the  will  of  Ward  (seventy  in  number),  were 
transported  to  Ohio  and  settled  in  Lawrence  County.2 

By  his  will,  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke,  who  died  in 
1833,  emancipated  all  of  his  slaves  and  directed  his  executor, 
Judge  William  Leigh,  to  transport  them  to  some  one  of 
the  free  states  and  settle  them  upon  lands  which  he  was 
directed  to  purchase  for  the  purpose.  The  will  bequeathed 
the  sum  of  thirteen  thousand  dollars  to  defray  the  ex 
penses  incident  to  their  colonization  and  to  pay  for  the  land. 

Howe  in  his  Historical  Collections  of  Ohio  (Edition  of 
1891)  says: 

"In  1846  Judge  Leigh,  of  Virginia,  purchased  3200 
acres  of  land  in  this  settlement  for  the  freed  slaves  of 
John  Randolph  of  Roanoke.  These  arrived  in  the  Summer 
of  1846  to  the  number  of  about  four  hundred  but  were  forci 
bly  prevented  from  making  a  settlement  by  a  portion  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  county.  Since  then  acts  of  hostility 
have  been  commenced  against  the  people  of  this  settle 
ment  and  threats  of  greater  held  out  if  they  do  not  abandon 
their  lands  and  homes." 

"From  a  statement  in  the  county  history  issued  in  1882 
we  see  that  a  part  of  the  Randolph  negroes  succeeded  in 
effecting  a  settlement  at  Montezuma,  Franklin  Township, 
just  south  of  the  reservoir."3 

'See  Will  Book  No.  1,  p.  109,  Clerk's  Office,  Pittsylvania  County, 
Va. 

2See  Public  Ledger  of  Philadelphia,  April  14,  1827. 

'Historical  Collections  of  Ohio,  History  of  Mercer  County,  Ohio, 
by  Henry  Howe,  1891,  Vol.  II,  p.  505. 


INSTANCES  OF  COLONIZATION  69 

By  his  will  which  was  probated  March  23,  1848,  John 
Warwick,  of  Amherst  County,  Virginia,  emancipated  all 
his  slaves,  and  in  like  manner  bequeathed  his  whole  estate 
to  create  a  fund  for  removing  them  to  one  of  the  free 
states,  purchasing  farms,  and  establishing  them  in  their 
new  homes.  The  testator  indicated  that  he  preferred 
Indiana  as  the  place  of  residence  for  his  slaves.1  Dr. 
David  Patteson,  of  Buckingham  County,  was  appointed 
executor  and  charged  with  the  duties  of  settling  the  estate 
and  removing  the  freedmen  to  their  new  homes.  Before 
arrangements  for  their  removal  to  Indiana  could  be  per 
fected,  that  state  adopted  its  constitution  of  1851,  whereby 
free  negroes  and  mulattoes  were  inhibited  from  coming 
into  the  state.  Accordingly  Dr.  Patteson  purchased  for 
the  ex-slaves  a  large  tract  of  land  in  Ohio,  near  Kenton, 
and  thither  they  were  transported  and  settled  in  their 
new  homes.  The  inventory  of  Mr.  Warwick's  estate 
shows  that  at  the  time  of  his  death  he  owned  seventy-four 
slaves.2 

By  his  will,  admitted  to  probate  July  9th,  1849,  Sampson 
Sanders,  of  Cabell  County,  emancipated  all  of  his  slaves 
and  directed  his  executors  to  provide  for  their  colonization 
"  in  the  State  of  Indiana,  or  some  one  of  the  free  states  of 
the  United  States."3  The  testator  bequeathed  to  these 
slaves  the  sum  of  fifteen  thousand  dollars,  out  of  which  fund 
should  be  paid  the  amount  necessary  for  the  purchase  of 
land  for  their  homes,  the  balance  to  be  distributed  among 
them.  Before  the  intentions  of  the  testator  could  be 

'See  Will  Book  No.  11,  p.  575,  Clerk's  Office,  Amherst  County,  Va. 

2John  Warwick  was  the  great-uncle  of  the  Hon.  John  Warwick 
Daniel,  now  (1908)  and  for  many  years  past  a  member  from  Virginia 
in  the  United  States  Senate. 

'See  Witt  Book  A.,  p.  391,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  Cabell  County, 
West  Virginia. 


70  SENTIMENTAL  DIFFICULTIES 

carried  into  effect,  Indiana  enacted  a  law  denying  to  freed 
negroes  the  privileges  of  settling  in  that  state.  Accord 
ingly  these  freedmen  were  carried  to  Cass  County,  Mich., 
where  they  were  settled  in  homes  purchased  for  them 
under  the  provisions  of  the  will  of  their  former  owner. 
This  colony  seems  to  have  succeeded,  and  many  of  the 
descendants  of  the  former  slaves  of  Sanders  are  to-day  liv 
ing  upon  the  lands  purchased  by  his  bounty.1 

In  addition  to  the  many  difficulties  already  enumerated, 
that  invested  colonization,  there  were  other  deterrent 
causes  only  less  real.  Was  it  right  to  send  these  newly 
manumitted  slaves  off,  upon  the  hazard  of  maintaining 
themselves  in  the  face  of  difficulties  for  which  they  had 
had  so  little  training?  This  was  the  question  for  the 
master.  What  of  their  future  in  the  far  away  and  unknown 
land?  That  was  the  question  for  the  slave.  Then  too, 
there  came  to  both  a  genuine  reluctance  to  meet  the  pain 
of  separation.  Of  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  a  strong 
affection  between  masters  and  slaves,  in  a  great  majority 
of  the  homes  in  Virginia  where  the  institution  of  slavery 
existed,  there  can  be  no  question.  From  the  great  number 
of  instances  illustrating  the  sorrows  of  masters  and  ser 
vants  in  the  hour  of  separation,  we  select  two. 

David  W.  Barton,  of  Winchester,  Virginia,  eman 
cipated  many  of  his  slaves  a  short  time  prior  to  the  Civil 
War.  Some  of  these  were  sent  to  Liberia,  and  others, 
who  from  age  or  youth  were  not  regarded  as  equal  to  the 
trials  of  the  trip,  were  settled  in  this  country.  Robert  T. 
Barton,  Esq.,  a  son  of  the  emancipator,  in  a  letter  to  the 
author  bears  testimony  to  the  fact  of  the  affection  which 
subsisted  between  the  members  of  his  father's  family  and 
these  freedmen.  "  I  was  quite  a  small  boy  at  the  time," 
lSee  Outlook  Magazine,  N.  Y.,  February  9th,  1903. 


INSTANCES  ILLUSTRATING  DIFFICULTIES          71 

he  writes,  "but  I  remember  the  incident  perfectly.  I 
recall  the  weeping  family  that  parted  with  these  servants, 
who  were  very  dear  to  us."1 

Traverse  Herndon,  of  Fauquier,  who  died  in  1854,  by 
his  last  will  emancipated  his  slaves,  some  fifty  in  number, 
and  made  provision  for  their  transportation  to  Liberia. 
Two  years  later  his  brother,  Thaddeus  Herndon,  eman 
cipated  his  slaves,  some  twenty  in  number,  and  the  two 
groups  of  freedmen,  except  such  as  were  too  old  to  bear 
the  dangers  of  the  voyage  and  life  in  the  new  country, 
were  sent  to  Liberia  in  the  fall  of  1857,  under  the  care  of 
an  agent  of  the  American  Colonization  Society. 

The  Rev.  Charles  T.  Herndon,  of  Salem,  Virginia,  has 
furnished  the  author  with  an  account  of  the  parting 
between  these  freedmen  and  his  father,  Thaddeus  Herndon, 
which  occurred  on  board  of  the  ship  "Euphrasia,"  written 
by  the  Rev.  John  Seys,2  a  former  missionary  to  Liberia, 

!Under  date  of  March  19,  1907,  Mr.  Barton  writes  the  author: 
"My  father  manumitted  his  slaves,  or  rather,  certain  of  them, 
before  the  war.  Under  the  law  as  I  remember  it,  it  was  not  neces 
sary  to  put  on  record  a  deed  of  manumission  of  a  slave  who  was 
sent  out  of  the  state.  ...  I  was  quite  a  small  boy  at  the  time,  but 
I  remember  the  incident  perfectly.  I  recall  the  weeping  family 
that  parted  with  these  servants,  who  were  very  dear  to  us.  ... 
Many  years  after  that  I  received  a  visit  from  one  of  the  women 
who  had  been  the  assistant  in  the  nursery,  and  to  whom,  as  a  child, 
I  remember  I  was  very  devoted.  I  do  not  believe  that  two  near 
relations  could  have  had  a  more  affecting  greeting.  She  stayed 
in  Winchester  for  nearly  a  week,  coming  to  my  house  every  day, 
and  finally  went  away  without  bidding  us  good  bye,  writing  back 
from  her  home  that  she  had  done  so  because  she  could  not  stand 
the  parting.  The  other  servants  who  went  away  also  kept  up 
with  our  family  the  most  affectionate  relations  for  many  years, 
and  the  old  ones,  who  could  not  get  away,  were  supported  by  my 
brothers  and  myself  after  the  war  until  they  died." 

2Mr.  Seys  records  that  his  experience  as  a  missionary  in  Liberia 
prompted  him  to  visit  these  emigrants  on  board  ship,  just  prepara- 


72    OPPOSITION  OF  FREEDMEN  TO  COLONIZATION 

who  was  present  on  the  occasion.  The  subjoined  extract 
from  Mr.  Seys'  account  of  the  separation,  which  was  pub 
lished  soon  afterwards  in  the  Maryland  Colonization 
Journal,  presents  in  the  most  vivid  manner  the  sorrow 
attending  the  parting  of  Thaddeus  Herndon  and  his  former 
slaves,  and  the  reverence  and  affection  with  which  the 
slaves  of  Traverse  Herndon  regarded  their  dead  master. 

Not  infrequently  the  many  difficulties  which  embarrassed 
the  efforts  of  Virginia  slaveholders  to  colonize  their  ex- 
slaves  at  points  beyond  the  state  were  increased  by  the 
attitude  of  the  slaves  themselves.  The  experience  of 
John  Thorn,  of  Berry  Hill,  Culpeper  County,  as  related 
in  a  letter  to  the  author  under  date  of  July  15th,  1908, 
by  his  son  Cameron  E.  Thorn,  of  Los  Angeles,  CaL,  will 
serve  as  an  illustration.  Mr.  Cameron  Thorn  is  at  present 
a  man  of  venerable  years  who  seems  to  retain  a  vivid 
impression  of  the  scenes  incident  to  the  attempt  at  coloniza 
tion  made  by  his  father  in  the  later  thirties.  Mr.  Thorn, 

tory  to  their  departure,  and  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Herndon,  make 
them  a  short  address.  He  then  writes:  "I  closed  my  remarks 
and  Mr.  Herndon  followed  me."  The  latter  said:  "I  may  not  see 
you  again,  I  may  as  well  say  all  I  have  to  say  now."  And  then 
he  became  so  choked  for  utterance,  and  tears  fell  so  fast  that  a 
silence  ensued  only  broken  by  sighs  and  sobs  of  the  entire  party. 
Again  he  continued: 

"My  heart  is  too  full.  I  can  hardly  speak.  You  know  how  we 
have  lived  together.  Servants,  hear  me,  we  have  been  brothers 
and  sisters,  we  have  grown  up  together.  We  have  done  the  best 
for  you.  For  two  or  three  years  this  has  been  contemplated  and 
you  are  now  on  the  point  of  starting  for  the  land  of  your  ancestors. 
Besides  your  freedom,  we  have  spent  $2,000.00  in  procuring  every 
thing  we  could  think  of  to  make  you  comfortable — clothing,  bed 
ding,  implements  of  husbandry,  mechanics'  tools,  books  for  the 
children,  Bibles,  a  family  Bible  for  each  family,  all  these  have  been 
provided,  and  when  you  have  been  there  some  few  months,  we  will 
send  you  out  another  supply  of  provisions  and  will  continue  to  do 
so.  And  now,  you  three  brethren,  who  formed  the  committee 


OPPOSITION  OF  FREEDMEN  TO  COLONIZATION    73 

after  narrating  that  his  father  was  a  soldier  in  the  War 
of  1812,  where  he  gained  his  title  as  commander  of  a 
Virginia  regiment,  and  was  for  thirty  years  a  member 
of  the  State  Senate,  proceeds  to  write  with  reference  to 
his  father's  attitude  towards  slavery  as  follows: 

"He  was  not  satisfied  with  it,  and  was  restive  under 
it.  In  his  discussions  of  the  subject  he  often  quoted  as 
expressive  of  his  views  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  declared  that 
'We  have  the  wolf  by  the  ears,  and  it  is  as  dangerous  to 
let  go  as  it  is  to  hold  on/  I  believe  they  were  both  gradual 
emancipationists.  The  idea  of  practical  and  immediate 
emancipation  through  the  medium  of  colonization  seems 
to  have  crystallized  in  his  mind  and  stimulated  him  to 
action.  He  sent  my  eldest  brother,  Catesby  Thorn,  to 
Pennsylvania  to  spy  out  the  land  and  to  make  definite 
arrangements  for  the  location,  settlement  and  comfort 
of  the  proposed  colony.  After  an  absence  of  several 
weeks,  he  returned  and  reported  that  he  had  selected  an 
ideal  location  for  the  experiment.  Every  desideratum 
seems  to  have  been  taken  into  consideration,  climate, 
wood,  water,  fertility  of  the  soil,  products,  neighbors,  etc. 

"  To  carry  out  my  father's  plan,  the  next  step  was  to  call 
for  eighteen  volunteers  to  make  up  the  colony.  Here 
came  a  great  disappointment.  Of  the  number  called  for 
only  one  suitable  man  responded.  .  .  .  The  volunteer 
idea  was  abandoned  and  conscription  was  resorted  to. 
When  the  names  of  the  eighteen  chosen  ones  were  an 
nounced  the  plantation  was  indeed  a  house  of  mourning. 

appointed  by  the  church  to  watch  over  your  brethren,  a  word  to 
you.  You  are  chosen  to  admonish,  guide,  counsel  the  others,  not 
to  lord  it  over  them,  but  gently  and  kindly  to  watch  over  their 
souls;  and  now,  may  God  bless  you.  I  can  never  forget  you. 
Write  to  me,  Washington,  you  can  write;  I  have  provided  you  with 
paper.  Keep  a  journal,  put  all  of  your  names  down,  even  the 
children,  and  write  opposite  to  each  one  everything  that  happens 
concerning  you.  I  shall  feel  much  interested  in  hearing  from  you — 
especially  will  your  Miss  Frances.  (Here  the  bare  mention  of  their 


74     OPPOSITION   OF   FREEDMEN   TO    COLONIZATION 

Prayers,  protests  and  petitions  came  up,  but  were  of  no 
avail.  A  complete  outfit  was  made  up  of  three  wagons, 
twelve  oxen,  three  cows,  tools,  farming  utensils,  provisions, 
clothing,  &c.  The  expedition  got  off  all  right,  my  brother 
Catesby  being  chief  in  command,  and  Uncle  Billy  Guinn, 
the  only  volunteer,  a  full  second.  Before  the  expiration 
of  a  week  from  the  time  of  departure,  two  of  the  colonists 
had  deserted  and  were  back  at  Berry  Hill,  and  in  less  than 
a  year  nearly  all  the  others  had  found  their  way  back. 
My  brother,  after  some  two  months'  absence,  got  back 
and  reported  that  he  would  not  go  through  with  his  ex 
perience  again  for  all  the  negroes  in  Virginia. 

"I  left  Virginia  for  the  South  in  1848;  returning  in  a 
few  weeks,  I  took  my  final  departure  from  the  state  in  the 
early  Spring  of  1849  for  California  where  I  have  resided 
ever  since,  never  having  seen  my  father  again.  I  believe 
he  manumitted  all  or  nearly  all  of  the  servants  by  deed  or 
will." 

almost  adored  mistress  started  their  grief  afresh.)  Now,  as  we 
may  never  meet  again,  let  us  part  with  prayer,  let  all  kneel  down, 
and  Brother  Seys  will  lead  in  prayer  to  Almighty  God  for  you  all. " 
We  knelt  there,  and  under  feelings  words  but  poorly  express,  en 
gaged  in  prayer  as  best  we  could  amid  cries  and  sobs  and  tears. 


XII 

EMANCIPATION  AND  COLONIZATION:  VIEWS  OF 
JEFFERSON,  CLAY  AND  LINCOLN 

IF  it  be  urged  that  Virginia  had  reached  the  conclusion 
that  without  the  dispersion  or  colonization  of  the  whole 
or  a  large  portion  of  her  slave  population  emancipation 
was  impracticable,  it  may  be  acknowledged  that  to  a 
qualified  extent  this  was  true.  The  position,  however, 
did  not  involve  an  abandonment  of  the  principle  of  eman 
cipation,  but  rather  the  insistence  that  with  emancipation 
should  go  the  work  of  solving  the  race  problem  by  a  method 
which  gave  some  assurance  of  complete  success. 

That  this  attitude  of  Virginia  cannot  be  regarded  as 
wholly  unreasonable  or  reactionary  will  appear  when  we 
consider  the  views  of  some  of  the  leading  friends  of  negro 
emancipation.  From  the  number  of  those  whose  sanity 
kept  pace  with  their  zeal,  we  select  Thomas  Jefferson, 
Henry  Clay  and  Abraham  Lincoln. 

Mr.  Jefferson  in  1820  wrote: 

"Nothing  is  more  certainly  written  in  the  book  of  fate 
than  that  these  people  are  to  be  free;  nor  is  it  less  certain 
than  that  the  two  races,  equally  free,  cannot  live  in  the 
same  government.  Nature,  habit,  opinion,  have  drawn 
indelible  lines  of  distinction  between  them."1 

Writing  to  Jared  Sparks,  President  of  Harvard  College, 
in  1824,  he  said: 

"In  the  disposition  of  these  unfortunate  people  there 
Jefferson  Manuscript,  Raynor,  p.  64. 
75 


76  VIEWS  OF  JEFFERSON  AND  CLAY 

are  two  rational  objects  to  be  distinctly  kept  in  view. 
First,  the  establishment  of  a  colony  on  the  coast  of  Africa, 
which  may  introduce  among  the  aborigines  the  arts  of 
cultivated  life  and  the  blessings  of  liberty  and  science. 
By  doing  this,  we  may  make  them  some  retribution  for 
the  long  course  of  injuries  we  have  been  committing 
on  their  population.  .  .  .  Second  object,  and  the  most 
interesting  to  us,  as  coming  home  to  our  physical  and 
moral  characters,  to  our  happiness  and  safety,  is  to  provide 
an  asylum  to  which  we  can,  by  degrees,  send  the  whole  of 
that  population  from  among  us,  and  establish  them  under 
pur  patronage  and  protection,  as  a  separate,  free,  and 
independent  people,  in  some  country  and  climate  friendly 
to  human  life  and  happiness."1 

Mr.  Clay's  attitude  with  respect  to  the  institution  of 
slavery  will  appear  from  his  oft-quoted  declaration: 

"Those  who  would  repress  all  tendencies  to  liberty  and 
ultimate  emancipation  must  do  more  than  put  down  the 
benevolent  efforts  of  the  Colonization  Society,  they  must 
go  back  to  the  era  of  our  liberty  and  independence,  and 
muzzle  the  cannon  that  thunders  its  annual  joyous  return 
— they  must  blot  out  the  moral  lights  around  us — they 
must  penetrate  the  human  soul,  and  eradicate  the  light  of 
reason  and  the  love  of  liberty."2 

His  sentiments,  however,  with  respect  to  the  wisdom 
and  necessity  for  colonizing  the  manumitted  slaves  were 
equally  decided.  In  an  address  before  the  Colonization 
Society  of  Kentucky  at  Frankfort,  December  17,  1829, 
Mr.  Clay  presented  at  length  his  reasons  for  supporting 
the  movement  to  colonize  all  ex-slaves  in  the  Republic 
of  Liberia.  In  the  course  of  this  address  he  said: 

"If  the  question  were  submitted,  whether  there  should 
be  either  immediate  or  gradual  emancipation  of  all  the 

Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford,  Vol.  X,  p.  290. 
^Lincoln  and  Slavery,  Arnold,  p.  124. 


VIEWS  OF  CLAY  77 

slaves  in  the  United  States,  without  their  removal  or 
colonization,  painful  as  it  is  to  express  the  opinion,  I  have 
no  doubt  that  it  would  be  unwise  to  emancipate  them. 
For  I  believe,  that  the  aggregate  of  the  evils  which  would 
be  engendered  in  society  upon  the  supposition  of  such 
general  emancipation,  and  of  the  liberated  slaves  remaining 
promiscuously  among  us,  would  be  greater  than  all  the 
evils  of  slavery."1 

Continuing,  he  said: 

"  Is  there  no  remedy  I  again  ask  for  the  evils  of  which 
I  have  sketched  a  faint  and  imperfect  picture?  Is  our 
posterity  doomed  to  endure  forever  not  only  all  the  ills 
flowing  from  the  state  of  slavery,  but  all  which  arise  from 
incongruous  elements  of  population,  separated  from  each 
other  by  invincible  prejudices  and  by  natural  causes? 
Whatever  may  be  the  character  of  the  remedy  proposed, 
we  may  confidently  pronounce  it  inadequate,  unless  it 
provides  efficaciously  for  the  total  and  absolute  separation, 
by  an  extensive  space  of  water  or  of  land,  at  least  of  the 
white  portion  of  our  population  from  that  which  is  free  of 
the  colored/'2 

In  conclusion  he  said : 

"If  we  were  to  invoke  the  greatest  blessing  on  earth, 
which  Heaven,  in  its  mercy,  could  now  bestow  on  this 
nation,  it  would  be  the  separation  of  the  two  most  numerous 
races  of  its  population  and  their  comfortable  establish 
ment  in  distinct  and  different  countries."3 

The  biographers  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay, 
declare: 

"The  political  creed  of  Abraham  Lincoln  embraced 
among  other  tenets,  a  belief  in  the  value  and  promise  of 

lThe  African  Repository  and  Colonial  Journal,  Vol.  II,  No.  1,  p.  5. 
*The  African  Repository  and  Colonial  Journal,  Vol.  II,  p.  12. 
'Idem,  p.  23. 


78  VIEWS  OF  LINCOLN 

colonization  as  one  means  of  solving  the  great  race  prob 
lem  involved  in  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  United 
States.  .  .  .  Without  being  an  enthusiast,  Lincoln  was  a 
firm  believer  in  colonization."1 

Speaking  at  Springfield,   Illinois,   June  26,   1857,   Mr. 
Lincoln  said: 

"  I  have  said  that  the  separation  of  the  races  is  the  only 
perfect  prevention  of  amalgamation.  I  have  no  right  to 
say  that  all  the  members  of  the  Republican  Party  are  in 
favor  of  this  nor  to  say  that  as  a  party  they  are  in  favor 
of  it.  There  is  nothing  in  their  platform  directly  on  the 
subject.  But  I  can  say  a  very  large  proportion  of  its 
members  are  for  it  and  that  the  chief  plank  in  their  plat 
form — opposition  to  the  spread  of  slavery — is  most  favor 
able  to  that  separation.  Such  separation,  if  ever  effected 
at  all,  must  be  effected  by  colonization.  .  .  .  The  enter 
prise  is  a  difficult  one  but  where  there  is  a  will  there  is 
a  way;  and  what  colonization  needs  most  is  a  hearty  will. 
Will  springs  from  the  two  elements  of  moral  sense  and 
self-interest.  Let  us  be  brought  to  believe  it  is  morally 
right,  and  at  the  same  time  favorable  to,  or,  at  least,  not 
against  our  interests,  to  transfer  the  African  to  his  native 
clime,  and  we  shall  find  a  way  to  do  it,  however  great  the 
task  may  be."2 

Upon  his  assumption  of  the  office  of  President  Mr. 
Lincoln  sought  to  carry  into  effect  his  colonization  views. 
In  his  first  annual  message  to  Congress — December,  1861 — 
after  alluding  to  the  act  "to  confiscate  property  used 
for  insurrectionary  purposes,"  enacted  by  Congress  at  its 
extra  session,  under  the  operations  of  which  thousands  of 
slaves  had  come  into  the  custody  of  the  Federal  authorities 
and  the  further  fact  that  some  of  the  states  might  adopt 

Abraham  Lincoln,  A  History,  N.  &  H.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  355. 
^Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  I,  p.  235. 


VIEWS  OF  LINCOLN  79 

similar  statutes  with  similar  results,  he  proceeds  to  say: 

"In  such  cases  I  recommend  that  Congress  provide  for 
accepting  such  persons  from  such  states  according  to  some 
mode  of  valuation  in  lieu  pro  tanto  of  direct  taxes,  or  upon 
some  other  plan  to  be  agreed  on  with  such  states  respec 
tively;  that  such  persons,  on  such  acceptance,  by  the 
General  Government,  be  at  once  deemed  free,  and  that  in 
any  event  steps  be  taken  for  colonizing  both  classes  (or 
the  first  mentioned  if  the  other  shall  not  be  brought  into 
existence)  at  some  place  or  places  in  a  climate  congenial 
to  them.  It  might  be  well  to  consider  too  whether  the 
free  colored  people  already  in  the  United  States  could  not, 
so  far  as  individuals  may  desire,  be  included  in  such 
colonization. 

"  To  carry  out  the  plan  of  colonization  may  involve  the 
acquiring  of  territory,  and  also  the  appropriation  of  money 
beyond  that  to  be  expended  in  the  territorial  acquisition. 
Having  practised  the  acquisition  of  territory  for  nearly 
sixty  years  the  question  of  constitutional  power  to  do  so 
is  no  longer  an  open  one  with  us.  ... 

"If  it  be  said  that  the  only  legitimate  object  of  acquir 
ing  territory  is  to  furnish  homes  for  white  men  this  measure 
effects  that  object,  for  the  emigration  of  colored  men  leaves 
additional  room  for  white  men  remaining  or  coming  here. 
Mr.  Jefferson  however  placed  the  importance  of  procuring 
Louisiana  more  on  political  and  commercial  grounds  than 
on  providing  room  for  population.  On  this  whole  prop 
osition,  including  the  appropriation  of  money  with  the 
acquisition  of  territory,  does  not  expediency  amount  to 
absolute  necessity — that  without  which  the  government 
itself  cannot  be  perpetuated."1 

As  a  result  of  these  urgent  representations  Congress,  at 
its  session  of  1862,  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  President 
the  sum  of  $600,000.00  to  be  expended  at  his  discretion 
in  colonizing  with  their  consent  free  persons  of  African 

lMessages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Vol.  VI,  p.  54. 


80  VIEWS  OF   LINCOLN 

descent  in  some  country  adapted  to  their  condition  and 
necessities.1 

Mr.  Lincoln,  with  a  view  of  carrying  out  this  act  of 
Congress,  invited  a  number  of  prominent  colored  men  to 
meet  him  at  the  White  House  on  the  14th  of  August, 
1862,  and  then  and  there  urged  upon  them  the  wisdom 
of  availing  themselves  of  the  opportunity  thus  offered  to 
make  for  themselves  a  home  beyond  the  borders  of  this 
country.  Mr.  Lincoln  said  that  the  action  of  Congress 
in  placing  at  his  disposal  a  sum  of  money  for  the  purpose 
of  aiding  the  colonization  of  the  people  of  African  descent 
made  it  his  duty,  as  it  had  for  a  long  time  been  his  inclina 
tion,  to  favor  that  cause.  Continuing,  he  said : 

"And  why  should  the  people  of  your  race  be  colonized, 
and  where?  Why  should  you  leave  this  country?  This 
is  perhaps  the  first  question  for  proper  consideration. 
You  and  we  are  different  races.  We  have  between  us  a 
broader  difference  than  exists  between  almost  any  other 
two  races.  Whether  it  is  right  or  wrong  I  need  not  dis 
cuss;  but  this  physical  difference  is  a  great  disadvantage 
to  us  both  as  I  think.  Your  race  suffer  very  greatly, 
many  of  them  by  living  among  us,  while  ours  suffer  from 
your  presence.  In  a  word,  we  suffer  on  each  side.  If 
this  be  admitted,  it  affords  a  reason,  at  least,  why  we 
should  be  separated. 

"The  aspiration  of  men  is  to  enjoy  equality  with  the 
best  when  free,  but  on  this  broad  continent  not  a  single 
man  of  your  race  is  made  the  equal  of  a  single  man  of  ours. 
Go  where  you  are  treated  the  best,  and  the  ban  is  still 
upon  you.  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  this,  but  to  present 
it  as  a  fact  with  which  we  have  to  deal.  I  cannot  alter 
it  if  I  would." 

In  conclusion  he  said: 

lThe  Life,  Public  Services  and  State  Papers  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
Raymond,  p.  504. 


VIEWS  OF  LINCOLN  81 

"I  ask  you  then  to  consider  seriously  not  pertaining 
to  yourselves  merely,  nor  for  your  race  and  ours  for  the 
present  time  but  as  one  of  the  things  if  successfully  man 
aged,  for  the  good  of  mankind — not  confined  to  the  present 
generation."1 

In  his  special  message  to  Congress  April  16th,  1862, 
after  alluding  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  abolishing  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  he  approves  the  same  and 
declares:  "I  am  gratified  that  the  principles  of  compensa 
tion  and  colonization  are  both  recognized  and  practically 
applied  in  the  act."2 

lThe  Life,  Public  Services  and  State  Papers  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
Raymond,  p.  504. 

^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Vol.  VI,  p.  73. 


XIII 

ANTI-SLAVEKY  SENTIMENTS  OF  PROMINENT  VIRGINIANS 

No  account  of  Virginia's  record  in  regard  to  slavery 
would  be  complete  which  failed  to  set  forth  the  position  of 
her  foremost  men  with  respect  to  the  institution.  From  a 
mass  of  data  we  have  selected  the  following  declarations  as 
fairly  expressive  of  their  sentiments.  We  have  not  recorded 
the  views  of  Virginians,  however  worthy,  who  were  not 
by  birth,  training  and  sympathies,  representative  of  the 
dominant  element  of  her  people. 

Richard  Henry  Lee,  speaking  in  the  Virginia  House  of 
Burgesses  1772,  in  support  of  a  bill  prohibiting  the  slave 
trade,  said: 

"  Nor,  sir,  are  these  the  only  reasons  to  be  urged  against 
the  importation.  In  my  opinion  not  the  cruelties  prac 
tised  in  the  conquest  of  South  America,  not  the  savage 
barbarity  of  a  Saracen,  can  be  more  big  with  atrocity  than 
our  cruel  trade  to  Africa.  There  we  encourage  those  poor- 
ignorant  people  to  wage  eternal  war  against  each  other; 
.  .  .  that  by  war,  stealth  or  surprise,  we  Christians 
may  be  furnished  with  our  fellow-creatures,  who  are  no 
longer  to  be  considered  as  created  in  the  image  of  God  as 
well  as  ourselves  and  equally  entitled  to  liberty  and  freedom 
by  the  great  law  of  Nature,  but  they  are  to  be  deprived  for 
ever  of  all  the  comforts  of  life  and  to  be  made  the  most 
wretched  of  the  human  kind/'1 

Patrick  Henry,  writing  on  the  18th  day  of  January,  1773, 
said : 

lLife  of  R.  H.  Lee,  Lee,  Vol.  I,  p.  18. 
82 


ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS   PRIOR  TO   1810      83 

"  Is  it  not  a  little  surprising  that  Christianity,  whose  chief 
excellency  consists  in  softening  the  human  heart,  cherish 
ing  and  improving  its  finer  feelings,  should  encourage  a 
practice  so  totally  repugnant  to  the  first  impressions  of 
right  and  wrong?  What  adds  to  the  wonder  is  that  this 
abominable  practice  has  been  introduced  in  the  most 
enlightened  ages.  .  .  . 

"  Would  any  one  believe  I  am  the  master  of  slaves  of  my 
own  purchase!  I  am  drawn  along  by  the  general  incon 
venience  of  living  here  without  them.  I  will  not,  I  cannot 
justify  it.  ...  I  believe  the  time  will  come  when  an 
opportunity  will  be  offered  to  abolish  this  lamentable  evil. 
Everything  we  can  do  is  to  improve  it,  if  it  happens  in  our 
day;  if  not,  let  us  transmit  to  our  descendants,  together 
with  our  slaves,  a  pity  for  their  unhappy  lot  and  an  ab 
horrence  for  slavery."1 

At  another  time  he  wrote:  "  Our  country  will  be  peopled. 
The  question  is,  shall  it  be  with  Europeans,  or  Africans? 
...  Is  there  a  man  so  degenerate  as  to  wish  to  see 
his  country  the  gloomy  retreat  of  slavery?"2 

George  Washington,  writing  in  1786,  to  Robert  Morris, 
of  Philadelphia,  after  alluding  to  an  Anti-slavery  Society  of 
Quakers  in  that  city  and  suggesting  that  unless  their  prac 
tices  were  discontinued,  "  None  of  those  whose  misfortune 
it  is  to  have  slaves  as  attendants  will  visit  the  city  if  they 
can  possibly  avoid  it,"  continues: 

"  I  hope  it  will  not  be  conceived  from  these  observations 
that  it  is  my  wish  to  hold  the  unhappy  people,  who  are  the 
subjects  of  this  letter,  in  slavery.  I  can  only  say  that 
there  is  not  a  man  living  who  wishes  more  sincerely  than  I 
do  to  see  a  plan  adopted  for  the  abolition  of  it.  But  there 
is  only  one  proper  and  effectual  mode  by  which  it  can  be 
accomplished,  and  that  is  by  legislative  authority;  and  this, 
as  far  as  my  suffrage  will  go,  shall  never  be  wanting." 

lThe  True  Patrick  Henry,  Morgan,  p.  246. 

2Life  of  Patrick  Henry,  William  Wirt  Henry,  Vol.  I,  p.  114. 


84      ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  PRIOR  TO   1810 

Writing  in  the  same  year  to  John  F.  Mercer,  he  said: 

"  I  never  mean,  unless  some  particular  circumstance  shall 
compel  me  to  it,  to  possess  another  slave  by  purchase,  it 
being  among  my  first  wishes  to  see  some  plan  adopted  by 
which  slavery  in  this  country  may  be  abolished  by  law."1 

George  Mason,  speaking  in  the  Virginia  Convention  of 
1788  having  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  under 
consideration,  said: 

"  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  a  fatal  section  (Article  1,  Section 
9)  which  has  created  more  dangers  than  any  other.  The 
first  clause  allows  the  importation  of  slaves  for  twenty  years. 
Under  the  royal  government  this  evil  was  looked  upon  as  a 
great  oppression,  and  many  attempts  were  made  to  prevent 
it;  but  the  interest  of  the  African  merchants  prevented  its 
prohibition.  No  sooner  did  the  Revolution  take  place 
than  it  was  thought  of.  It  was  one  of  the  great  causes  of 
our  separation  from  Great  Britain.  Its  exclusion  has  been 
a  principal  object  of  this  state,  and  most  of  the  states  in  the 
Union.  The  augmentation  of  slaves  weakens  the  state; 
and  such  a  trade  is  diabolical  in  itself  and  disgraceful  to 
mankind;  yet  by  this  constitution,  it  is  continued  for 
twenty  years.  I  have  ever  looked  upon  this  as  a  most 
disgraceful  thing  to  America.  I  cannot  express  my  detes 
tation  of  it."* 

John  Tyler,  Sr.,  speaking  in  the  same  Convention  in 
condemnation  of  the  clause  permitting ^the  slave  trade: 

"Warmly  enlarged  on  the  impolicy,  iniquity  and  dis- 
gracefulness  of  this  wicked  traffic.  He  thought  the  reasons 
urged  by  gentlemen  in  defense  of  it  were  inconclusive  and 
ill-founded.  It  was  one  cause  of  the  complaints  against 
British  tyranny  that  this  trade  was  permitted.  The  Revo 
lution  had  put  a  period  to  it;  but  now  it  was  to  be  revived. 
He  thought  nothing  could  justify  it.  ...  His  earnest 

lThe  Writings  of  Washington,  Marshall,  Vol.  IX,  p.  159. 
'Madison  Papers,  Vol.  II,  p.  1391. 


ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  PRIOR  TO   1810      85 

desire  was  that  it  should  be  handed  down  to  posterity  that 
he  had  opposed  this  wicked  cause."1 

Edmund  Randolph,  in  1789,  wrote  to  Madison  that  he 
desired  to  go  to  Philadelphia  to  practise  law,  saying,  "  For 
if  I  found  that  I  could  live  there  I  could  emancipate  my 
slaves,  and  thus  end  my  days  without  undergoing  any 
anxiety  about  the  injustice  of  holding  them."2 

St.  George  Tucker,3  in  his  edition  of  Blackstone's  Com 
mentaries,  reviewing  the  origin  of  slavery  in  Virginia,  and 
the  status  of  the  institution  at  the  time  he  writes,  1803, 
declares : 

"  Among  the  blessings  which  the  Almighty  hath  showered 
on  these  states,  there  is  a  large  portion  of  the  bitterest 
draught  that  ever  flowed  from  the  cup  of  affliction.  Whilst 
America  hath  been  the  land  of  promise  to  Europeans  and 
their  descendants,  it  hath  been  the  vale  of  death  to  millions 
of  the  wretched  sons  of  Africa.  .  .  .  Whilst  we  adjured 
the  God  of  Hosts  to  witness  our  resolution  to  live  free,  or 
die;  and  imprecated  curses  on  their  heads  who  refused  to 
unite  with  us  in  establishing  the  empire  of  freedom,  we 
were  imposing  upon  our  fellowmen  who  differ  in  com 
plexion  from  us,  a  slavery  ten  thousand  times  more  cruel 
than  the  utmost  extremity  of  those  grievances  and  oppres 
sions  of  which  we  complained."4 

At   the   conclusion   of   his   carefully   prepared   article 

^Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  Tyler,  Vol.  I,  p.  154. 

*Life  of  Edmund  Randolph,  Conway,  p.  125. 

'Judge  Tucker,  who  was  professor  of  law  at  William  &  Mary 
College,  made  it  a  part  of  his  course  of  lectures  to  demonstrate 
the  moral  and  economic  objections  to  slavery. 

Mr.  Roosevelt  points  out  that  Thomas  H.  Benton  acquired  his 
deep-rooted  antagonism  to  the  institution  while  studying  Black- 
stone  "  as  edited  by  the  learned  Virginian  Judge  Tucker  who  in  an 
appendix  treated  of  and  totally  condemned  black  slavery  in  the 
United  States."  (Thomas  H.  Benton,  Roosevelt,  p.  297). 

'Tucker's  Blackstone,  Vol.  II,  Appendix,  note  H.,  p.  31. 


86      ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  FROM   1810-1831 

showing  the  efforts  made  by  the  people  of  Virginia  during 
the  period  of  British  rule  to  suppress  the  slave  trade,  their 
prompt  prohibition  of  the  traffic  immediately  upon  the 
assertion  of  their  independence,  and  the  various  statutes 
enacted  to  mitigate  the  hardships  of  the  institution,  he 
uses  these  earnest  yet  almost  pathetic  words : 

"Tedious  and  unentertaining  as  this  detail  may  appear 
to  all  others,  a  citizen  of  Virginia  will  feel  some  satisfaction 
in  reading  a  vindication  of  his  country  from  the  oppro 
brium,  but  too  lavishly  bestowed  upon  her,  of  fostering 
slavery  in  her  bosom,  whilst  she  boasts  a  sacred  regard 
for  the  liberty  of  her  citizens,  and  of  mankind  in 
general."1 

The  foregoing  quotations  express  the  sentiments  of  the 
leading  Virginians  of  the  Revolutionary  period  with  respect 
to  slavery. 

The  following  quotations,  taken  from  speeches  and 
letters  of  the  period  between  1810  and  1831,  express  the 
sentiments  of  men,  many  of  whom,  though  contemporaries 
of  Washington  and  Mason  and  Henry,  yet  survived  them  by 
a  quarter  of  a  century. 

Jefferson,  in  his  Notes  on  Virginia,  wrote : 

"  Can  the  liberties  of  a  nation  be  thought  secure  when  we 
have  removed  their  only  firm  basis,  a  conviction  in  the 
minds  of  the  people  that  these  liberties  are  of  the  gift  of  God  ; 
that  they  are  not  violated  but  with  His  wrath?  Indeed  I 
tremble  for  my  country  when  I  reflect  that  God  is  just;  that 
His  justice  cannot  sleep  forever."2 

Writing  in  1820  to  John  Holmes,  he  said : 

"  I  can  say  with  conscious  truth  that  there  is  not  a  man 

lldem,  p.  53. 

^Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  267. 


ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  FROM   1810-1831       87 

on  earth  who  would  sacrifice  more  than  I  would  to  relieve 
us  from  this  heavy  reproach,  in  any  practicable  way.  The 
cession  of  that  kind  of  property — for  so  it  is  misnamed — is  a 
bagatelle  which  would  not  cost  me  a  second  thought  if,  in 
that  way,  a  general  emancipation  and  expatriation  could  be 
effected;  and  gradually,  and  with  due  sacrifice,  I  think  it 
might  be ;  but  as  it  is,  we  have  the  wolf  by  the  ears  and  can 
neither  hold  him  nor  safely  let  him  go.  Justice  is  in  one 
scale,  and  self-preservation  in  the  other.  "l 

John  Tyler,  in  February,  1820,  speaking  in  Congress  as  a 
Representative  from  Virginia  when  the  bill  for  the  admission 
of  Missouri  was  under  discussion,  together  with  the  amend 
ment  prohibiting  the  admission  of  slaves  into  the  territories, 
said: 

"Slavery  has  been  represented  on  all  hands  as  a  dark 
cloud  and  the  candor  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
Mr.  Whitman,  drove  him  to  the  admission  that  it  would  be 
well  to  disperse  this  cloud.  In  this  sentiment  I  entirely 
concur  with  him.  How  can  you  otherwise  disarm  it?  Will 
you  suffer  it  to  increase  in  its  darkness  over  one  particular 
portion  of  this  land  till  its  horrors  shall  burst  upon  it? 
.  .  .  How  is  the  North  interested  in  pursuing  such  a 
course?  The  man  of  the  North  is  far  removed  from  its 
influence;  he  may  smile  and  experience  no  disquietude. 
But  exclude  this  property  from  Missouri  by  the  exercise  of 
an  arbitrary  power;  shut  it  out  from  the  territories;  and  I 
maintain  that  you  do  not  consult  the  interests  of  this  Union. 

"  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  also  conceded  that 
for  which  we  contend — that  by  diffusing  this  population 
extensively  you  increase  the  prospects  of  emancipation. 
What  enabled  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  other  states  to 
adopt  the  language  of  universal  emancipation?  Rely  on  it, 
nothing  but  the  paucity  of  the  number  of  their  slaves. 
That  which  would  have  been  criminal  in  those  states  not 
to  have  done  would  be  an  act  of  political  suicide  in  Georgia 

Vdem,  Vol.  X,  p.  157. 


88      ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  FROM   1810-1831 

or  South  Carolina  to  do.     By  this  dispersion  you  also 
ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  black  man."1 

John  Randolph  of  Roanoke,  speaking  in  Congress,  March 
2,  1826,  said: 

"  My  feelings  and  instincts  were  in  opposition  to  slavery 
in  every  shape;  to  the  subjugation  of  one  man's  will  to  that 
of  another;  and,  from  the  time  I  read  Clarkson's  celebrated 
pamphlet,  I  was,  I  am  afraid,  as  mad  as  Clarkson  himself. 
I  read  myself  into  this  madness,  as  I  have  read  myself  into 
some  agricultural  improvements;  but,  as  with  these  last,  I 
worked  myself  out  of  them.  .  .  .  The  disease  will  run 
its  course.  It  has  run  its  course  in  the  Northern  States; 
it  is  beginning  to  run  its  course  in  Maryland.  The  natural 
death  of  slavery  is  the  unprofitableness  of  its  most  expen 
sive  labor."2 

Replying  to  a  Northern  member  in  Congress,  in  1826,  he 
said :  "  Sir,  I  envy  neither  the  head  nor  the  heart  of  the  man 
from  the  North  who  arises  here  to  defend  slavery  upon 
principle."3 

Francis  W.  Gilmer,  writing  to  William  Wirt,  from  Eng 
land  in  July,  1824,  said: 

"I  begin  to  be  impatient  to  see  Virginia  once  more. 
It's  more  like  England  than  any  other  part  of  the  United 
States — slavery  non  obstanti.  Remove  the  stain — blacker 
than  the  Ethiopian's  skin,  and  annihilate  our  political 
schemers  and  it  would  be  the  fairest  realm  on  which  the 
sun  ever  shone."4 

John  Marshall,  writing  in  1826,  said: 

"  I  concur  with  you  that  nothing  portends  more  calamity 
and  mischief  to  the  Southern  States  than  their  slave  popu- 

lLetters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  Tyler,  Vol.  I,  p.  317. 
^Abridgment  of  Debates  in  Congress  1789-1856,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  40. 
^American  Conflict,  Greeley,  Vol.  I,  p.  109. 
'Kennedy's  Life  of  Wirt,  Kennedy,  Vol.  II,  p.  188. 


ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  FROM    1810-1831        89 

lation.  Yet,  they  seem  to  cherish  the  evil,  and  to  view 
with  immovable  prejudice  and  dislike  everything  which 
may  tend  to  diminish  it.  I  do  not  wonder  that  they  should 
resent  any  attempt,  should  one  be  made,  to  interfere  with 
the  rights  of  property,  but  they  have  a  feverish  jealousy 
of  measures  which  may  do  good  without  the  hazard  of  harm, 
that  I  think  very  unwise."1 

James  Monroe,  speaking  in  the  Virginia  Constitutional 
Convention  on  the  2nd  of  November,  1829,  said: 

"What  has  been  the  leading  spirit  of  this  state  ever 
since  our  independence  was  obtained?  She  has  always 
declared  herself  in  favor  of  the  equal  rights  of  man.  The 
Revolution  was  conducted  on  that  principle.  Yet  there 
was  at  that  time  a  slavish  population  in  Virginia.  We  hold 
it  in  the  condition  in  which  the  Revolution  found  it,  and 
what  can  be  done  with  this  population?  ...  As  to  the 
practicability  of  emancipating  them,  it  can  never  be  done 
by  the  state  itself,  nor  without  the  aid  of  the  Union.  .  .  . 

"Sir,  what  brought  us  together  in  the  Revolutionary  War? 
It  was  the  doctrine  of  equal  rights.  Each  part  of  the  coun 
try  encouraged  and  supported  every  other  part.  None 
took  advantage  of  the  other's  distresses.  And  if  we  find 
that  this  evil  has  preyed  upon  the  vitals  of  the  Union  and 
has  been  prejudicial  to  all  the  states  where  it  has  existed, 
and  is  likewise  repugnant  to  their  several  state  constitutions 
and  Bills  of  Rights,  why  may  we  not  expect  that  they  will 
unite  with  us  in  accomplishing  its  removal?"2 

Benjamin  Watkins  Leigh,  speaking  in  the  Virginia  Con 
stitutional  Convention  of  1829-30,  said: 

"I  wish  indeed  that  I  had  been  born  in  a  land  where 
domestic  and  negro  slavery  is  unknown — no,  sir, — I  mis 
represent  myself — I  do  not  wish  so.  I  shall  never  wish 

lJohn  Marshall,  Life,  Character  and  Judicial  Services,  Dillon,  Vol. 
I,  p.  216. 

^Debates  of  Virginia  Convention  of  1829-30,  p.  149. 


90        ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  FROM   1810-1831 

that  I  had  been  born  out  of  Virginia — but  I  wish  that 
Providence  had  spared  my  country  this  moral  and  political 
evil.  It  is  supposed  that  our  slave  labor  enables  us  to 
live  in  luxury  and  ease,  without  industry,  without  care. 
Sir,  the  evil  of  slavery  is  greater  to  the  master  than  to  the 
slave.  He  is  interested  in  all  their  wants,  all  their  dis 
tresses,  bound  to  provide  for  them,  to  care  for  them,  to 
labor  for  them,  while  they  labor  for  him,  and  his  labor  is  by 
no  means  the  less  severe  of  the  two.  The  relation  between 
master  and  slave  imposes  on  the  master  a  heavy  and  painful 
responsibility."1 

James  Madison,  in  1831,  wrote  concerning  slavery  and 
the  American  Colonization  Society: 

"Many  circumstances  of  the  present  moment  seem  to 
concur  in  brightening  the  prospects  of  the  Society  and 
cherishing  the  hope  that  the  time  will  come  when  the 
dreadful  calamity  which  has  so  long  afflicted  our  country 
and  filled  so  many  with  despair,  will  be  gradually  removed, 
and  by  means  consistent  with  justice,  peace,  and  general 
satisfaction;  thus  giving  to  our  country  the  full  enjoyment 
of  the  blessings  of  liberty,  and  to  the  world  the  full  benefit 
of  its  great  example.  "2 


lldem,  p.  173. 


lldem,  p.  173. 

*Life  of  James  Madison,  Hunt,  p.  369. 


XIV 

ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  OF  PROMINENT 
VIRGINIANS     (Continued) 

THE  anti-slavery  sentiments  of  prominent  Virginians, 
expressed  in  the  speeches  delivered  in  the  notable  debate 
which  occurred  in  the  Virginia  Legislature  of  1832,  may 
well  be  considered  in  a  group  by  themselves.  The  speakers 
were  all  young  men  and  represented  a  later  generation 
than  those  from  whom  quotations  have  already  been 
given.  Many  of  them  were  destined  to  fill  important 
roles  in  the  political  life  of  the  state  and  some  of  them, 
with  undiminished  influence,  survived  the  period  of  the 
Civil  War.  McDowell  became  Governor  of  the  state  and 
a  member  of  Congress;  Preston  was  a  member  of  Congress, 
a  member  of  President  Taylor's  Cabinet,  and  one  of  the 
leading  spirits  in  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1861;  Ran 
dolph  was  repeatedly  returned  to  the  Legislature  and  was 
a  prominent  member  of  the  Reform  Convention  of  1850-51, 
and  Faulkner  was  for  years  a  member  of  Congress  and  also 
Minister  to  France. 

The  position  of  these  Virginians  was  significant  as 
representative  of  the  widespread  anti-slavery  sentiments 
which  pervaded  the  state.  Chandler,  of  Norfolk  County, 
represented  the  largest  slaveholding  county  in  Tide-water 
Virginia;  Broadnax  and  Boiling,  two  large  slaveholding 
counties  in  the  Black  Belt;  Randolph  and  Marshall, 
counties  in  the  Piedmont  section;  Preston,  the  Southwest; 
McDowell,  the  Upper  Valley,  and  Berry  and  Faulkner, 

91 


92  ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS,  1832 

the  two  counties  in  the  extreme  lower  end  of  the  valley. 
Thomas  Marshall,  of  Fauquier  County,  speaking  in  the 
Virginia  House  of  Delegates,  January  14th,  1832,  when 
the  subject  of  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  was  under 
discussion,  said: 

"Wherefore,  then,  object  to  slavery?  Because  it  is 
ruinous  to  the  whites,  retards  improvements,  roots  out 
an  industrious  population — banishes  the  yeomanry  of 
the  country — deprives  the  spinner,  the  weaver,  the  smith, 
the  shoemaker,  the  carpenter,  of  employment  and  support. 
The  evil  admits  of  no  remedy,  and  it  is  increasing  and  will 
continue  to  increase  until  the  whole  country  will  be  inun 
dated  by  one  black  wave  covering  its  whole  extent,  with  a 
few  white  faces  here  and  there  floating  on  the  surface."1 

John  A.  Chandler,  a  representative  from  Norfolk  County, 
speaking  on  the  17th  of  January  in  the  same  debate,  said: 

"It  will  be  recollected,  sir,  that  when  the  memorial 
from  Charles  City  was  presented  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hanover,  and  when  its  reference  was  opposed,  I  took 
occasion  to  observe  that  I  believed  the  people  of  Norfolk 
County  would  rejoice  could  they  even  in  the  vista  of  time 
see  some  scheme  for  the  general  removal  of  this  curse 
from  our  land.  I  should  have  voted,  sir,  for  its  rejection 
because  I  was  desirous  to  see  a  report  from  the  committee 
declaring  the  slave  population  an  evil  and  recommending 
to  the  people  of  this  commonwealth  the  adoption  of  some 
plan  for  its  riddance."2 

William  H.  Broadnax,  speaking  as  a  representative 
from  the  County  of  Dinwiddie,  on  the  19th  of  January,  in 
the  same  debate,  said: 

lVirginia  Slavery  Debate,  1832,  White,  Speech  of  Thomas 
Marshall,  p.  6. 

*Idem,  Speech  of  J.  A.  Chandler,  p.  3. 


ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS,    1832  93 

"  That  slavery  in  Virginia  is  an  evil  and  a  transcendent 
evil  it  would  be  idle  and  worse  than  idle  for  any  human 
being  to  doubt  or  deny.  It  is  a  mildew  which  has  blighted 
in  its  course  every  region  it  has  touched  from  the  creation 
of  the  world.  Illustrations  from  the  history  of  other 
countries  and  other  times  might  be  instructive  and  profit 
able  had  we  time  to  review  them,  but  we  have  evidence 
tending  to  the  same  conviction  nearer  at  hand  in  the  short 
histories  of  the  different  states  of  this  great  confederacy 
which  are  impressive  in  their  admonitions  and  conclusive 
in  their  character/'1 

Henry  Berry,  speaking  as  a  representative  from  Jeffer 
son  County,  on  the  20th  of  January,  in  the  same  debate, 
said: 

"  Sir,  I  believe  that  no  cancer  on  the  physical  body  was 
ever  more  certain,  steady  and  fatal  in  its  progress  than 
is  this  cancer  on  the  political  body  of  the  State  of  Virginia. 
It  is  eating  into  her  very  vitals.  And  shall  we  act  the 
part  of  a  puny  patient,  suffering  under  the  ravages  of  a 
fatal  disease,  who  would  say  the  remedy  is  too  painful, 
the  dose  is  too  nauseous,  I  cannot  bear  it;  who  would  close 
his  eyes  in  despair  and  give  himself  up  to  death?  No, 
sir,  I  would  bear  the  knife  and  the  cautery,  for  the  sake 
of  health.  I  would  never  despair  of  the  Republic.  For 
myself,  I  would  abandon  hope  on  this  subject  and  the 
state  together."2 

Charles  James  Faulkner,  speaking  as  a  representative 
from  Berkeley  County,  on  the  20th  of  January,  in  the 
same  debate,  said: 

"Wherever  the  voice  of  your  people  has  been  heard 
since  the  agitation  of  this  question,  it  has  sustained  your 
determination  and  called  for  the  present  enquiry.  I  have 
heard  of  county  meetings,  county  petitions,  and  county 

lldem,  Speech  of  William  H.  Broadnax,  p.  10. 
*Idem,  Speech  of  Henry  Berry,  p.  2. 


94  ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS,   1832 

memorials;  I  have  heard  from  the  North,  the  East,  and 
the  South.  They  are  all,  with  one  voice,  against  the 
continuance  of  slavery.  None  for  it.  The  press,  too, 
that  mirror  of  public  sentiment,  that  concentrated  will  of 
a  whole  community,  has  been  heard  from  one  extremity 
of  the  state  to  the  other.  Its  power  is  with  us,  its  moral 
force  is  united,  efficient  and  encouraging.  In  this  city, 
the  capital  of  the  Old  Dominion,  the  heart  of  the  common 
wealth,  which  by  one  ventricle  receives  and  through  the 
other  discharges  the  life  blood  of  intelligence  and  public 
spirit  throughout  your  empire,  aye,  and  from  a  quarter 
and  from  many  quarters  where  such  a  voice  was  least 
expected  its  tones  have  been  firm,  manly,  and  intrepid. 
Honor,  sir,  to  those  who  dare  speak  the  truth  in  the  worst 
of  times.'7 

In  conclusion  he  said: 

"In  the  language  of  the  wise  and  prophetic  Jefferson, 
*  you  must  approach  it,  you  must  bear  it,  you  must  adopt 
some  plan  of  emancipation,  or  worse  will  follow.' ": 

James  McDowell,  speaking  as  a  representative  from 
Rockbridge  County,  on  the  21st  of  January,  in  the  same 
debate,  said: 

"Sir,  you  may  place  the  slave  where  you  please — you 
may  dry  up  to  your  uttermost  the  fountains  of  his  feelings, 
the  springs  of  his  thought — you  may  close  upon  his  mind 
every  avenue  of  knowledge  and  cloud  it  over  with  artificial 
night — you  may  yoke  him  to  your  labors  as  the  ox  which 
liveth  only  to  work  and  worketh  only  to  live — you  may 
put  him  under  any  process,  which,  without  destroying 
his  value  as  a  slave,  will  debase  and  crush  him  as  a  rational 
being — you  may  do  this  and  the  idea  that  he  was  born  to 
be  free  will  survive  it  all.  It  is  allied  to  his  hope  of  im 
mortality — it  is  the  ethereal  part  of  his  nature  which 
oppression  cannot  reach;  it  is  a  torch  lit  up  in  his  soul  by 

lldem,  Speech  of  C.  J.  Faulkner,  p.  5  and  p.  22. 


ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS,  1832  95 

the  hand  of  the  Deity  and  never  meant  to  be  extinguished 
by  the  hand  of  man."1 

Thomas  Jefferson  Randolph,  speaking  as  a  representa 
tive  from  Albemarle  County,  on  the  21st  of  January,  in 
the  same  debate,  said: 

"Does  slavery  exist  in  any  part  of  civilized  Europe? 
No,  sir,  in  no  part  of  it.  America  is  the  only  civilized 
Christian  nation  that  bears  the  opprobrium.  In  every 
other  country  where  civilization  and  Christianity  have 
existed  together  they  have  erased  it  from  their  codes."2 

Philip  A.  Boiling,  speaking  as  a  representative  from 
Buckingham  County,  on  the  25th  of  January,  in  the  same 
debate,  said: 

"  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  vain  for  gentlemen  to  deny  the  fact 
that  the  feelings  of  society  are  fast  becoming  adverse  to 
slavery.  Moral  causes  which  produce  that  feeling  are  on 
the  march  and  will  on  until  the  groans  of  slavery  are 
heard  no  more  in  this  else  happy  country.  Look  over  this 
world's  wide  page — see  the  rapid  progress  of  liberal  feelings 
— see  the  shackles  falling  from  nations  who  have  long 
writhed  under  the  galling  yoke  of  slavery.  Liberty  is 
going  over  the  whole  earth,  hand  in  hand  with  Chris 
tianity." 

1Idem,  Speech  of  James  McDowell,  p.  20. 

'Idem,  Speech  of  T.  J.  Randolph,  p.  15. 

Idem,  Speech  of  Philip  A.  Boiling,  p.  15. 


XV 

THE  ANTI-SLAVEEY  SENTIMENTS  OF  PROMINENT 
VIRGINIANS    (Concluded) 

THE  period  from  1833-1860  witnessed,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  rise  and  progress  of  the  abolition  movement  at  the 
North  and  the  growth  of  pro-slavery  sentiment  in  Virginia 
and  the  South.  These  conditions  are  reflected  in  the 
deliverances  of  many  prominent  anti-slavery  Virginians, 
and  by  a  growing  indisposition  on  the  part  of  others  of 
this  element  to  publicly  declare  their  sentiments  or  to 
take  part  in  the  discussions,  which,  with  growing  bitter 
ness,  marked  the  times. 

George  Washington  Parke  Custis,  speaking  on  the 
21st  of  January,  1833,  before  the  American  Colonization 
Society,  said: 

"Some  alarmists  tell  us  that  the  slave  population  is  to 
be  freed.  And,  sir,  does  any  one  regret  that  the  hope  is 
held  out,  that  with  our  own  consent,  we  shall  one  day  see 
an  end  of  slavery?  Should  this  Society  be,  as  I  doubt 
not  it  will,  the  happy  means  of  producing  this  result,  it  will 
be  renowned  as  having  done  one  of  the  greatest  and  best 
deeds  that  have  blessed  the  world."  1 

The  following  extract  from  a  speech  of  William  C.  Rives 
serves  not  only  to  illustrate  his  anti-slavery  sentiments, 
but  the  rise  of  the  two  antagonistic  parties — the  Aboli 
tionists  in  the  North  and  the  Pro-slavery  men  in  the 

1  See  Proceedings  of  Sixteenth  Annual  Meeting  of  American 
Colonization  Society,  January,  1833,  p.  XVII. 

96 


ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  FROM   1833-1860      97 

South.  The  speech  of  Dr.  Ruffner,  delivered  ten  years 
later,  also  indicates  the  same  condition  and  the  fresh 
difficulties  with  which  the  cause  of  gradual  emancipation 
in  Virginia  was  thus  confronted. 

William  C.  Rives,  speaking  in  the  United  States  Senate 
on  the  6th  day  of  February,  1837,  after  deprecating  the 
action  of  Mr.  Webster  in  presenting  abolition  petitions 
as  precipitating  controversy  over  a  subject  with  respect  to 
which  Congress  had  no  jurisdiction,  then  replied  to  the 
position  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  slavery  was  a  beneficent 
institution,  as  follows: 

"But,  sir,  while  I  have  been  thus  prepared  and  deter 
mined  to  defend  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  South 
at  every  hazard,  I  have  not  felt  myself  bound  to  conform 
my  understanding  and  conscience  to  the  standard  of 
faith  that  has  recently  been  set  up  by  some  gentlemen 
in  regard  to  the  general  question  of  slavery.  I  have  not 
considered  it  a  part  of  my  duty  as  a  representative  from 
the  South,  to  deny,  as  has  been  done  by  this  new  school, 
the  natural  freedom  and  equality  of  man;  to  contend  that 
slavery  is  a  positive  good;  that  it  is  inseparable  from  the 
condition  of  man;  that  it  must  exist  in  some  form  or  other 
in  every  political  community;  and  that  it  is  even  an 
essential  ingredient  in  Republican  government.  No,  sir, 
I  have  not  thought  it  necessary,  in  order  to  defend  the 
rights  and  institutions  of  the  South,  to  attack  the  great 
principles  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  our  political 
system,  and  to  revert  to  the  dogmas  of  Sir  Robert  Filmer, 
exploded  a  century  and  a  half  ago  by  the  immortal  works 
of  Sidney  and  Locke.  .  .  . 

"  In  pursuing  this  course  I  have  the  satisfaction  of  reflect 
ing  that  I  follow  the  example  of  the  greatest  men  and 
purest  patriots  who  have  illustrated  the  annals  of  our  coun 
try—of  the  Fathers  of  the  Republic  itself. 

"It  never  entered  into  their  minds,  while  laying  the  foun 
dation  of  the  great  and  glorious  fabric  of  our  free  govern- 


98      ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  FROM   1833-1860 

ment,  to  contend  that  domestic  slavery  was  a  positive  good 
— a  great  good.  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Marshall, 
the  brightest  names  of  my  own  state,  are  known  to  have 
lamented  the  existence  of  slavery  as  a  misfortune  and  an 
evil  to  the  country,  and  their  thoughts  were  often  anxiously, 
however  unavailingly,  exercised  in  devising  some  scheme  of 
safe  and  practical  relief,  proceeding  always,  however,  from 
the  states  which  suffered  the  evil.  .  .  . 

"  In  following  such  lights  as  these,  I  feel  that  I  sin  against 
no  principle  of  republicanism,  and  against  no  safeguard  of 
Southern  rights  and  Southern  policy  when  I  frankly  say  in 
answer  to  the  interrogatory  of  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina,  that  I  do  regard  slavery  as  an  evil — an  evil  not 
uncompensated,  I  know,  by  collateral  effects  of  high  value 
on  the  social  and  intellectual  character  of  my  countrymen; 
but  still  in  the  eye  of  religion,  philanthropy  and  reason,  an 
evil."1 

Charles  Fenton  Mercer,  in  his  work,  An  Exposition  of 
the  Weakness  and  Inefficiency  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  published  in  1845,  said: 

"  How  shall  we  approach  the  horrid  subject  of  slavery,  the 
blackest  of  all  blots,  the  foulest  of  all  deformities?  Here 
are  a  people  descended  from  the  very  centre  of  civilization 
and  free  institutions  of  Europe,  bearing  with  them  the  full 
tide  of  liberal  principles,  and  the  very  cap  and  essence  of 
liberty,  and  boasting  not  only  of  their  descent,  but  that  they 
are  more  than  worthy  of  their  ancestors,  that  have  sanc 
tioned  slavery  in  its  most  abject  form,  and  now,  by  actual 
enumeration,  have  upwards  of  three  millions  of  them."2 

R.  R.  Howison,  the  Virginia  historian,  in  his  History  of 
Virginia,  published  in  1848,  alluding  to  slavery  in  the 
state,  said: 

Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  XIII,  part  I,  p.  717. 
*An  Exposition  of  the  Weakness  and  Inefficiency  of  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  p.  167. 


ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  FROM   1833-1860      99 

"We  apprehend  that  in  general,  the  people  of  Virginia 
hold  slavery  to  be  an  enormous  evil,  bearing  with  fatal 
power  upon  their  prosperity.  This  sentiment  has  been 
gaining  ground  during  many  years.  .  .  .  Under  these  cir 
cumstances,  we  hail  with  pleasure  any  indications  that  this 
part  of  our  population  (the  slave  portion)  is  decreasing  in 
number  and  that  the  time  shall  come  when  Virginia  shall 
be  a  free  state/'1 

Dr.  Henry  Ruffner,  President  of  Washington  College, 
delivered  in  1847  an  address  which  was  printed  in  pamphlet 
form  and  widely  distributed,  dealing  with  the  subject  of 
slavery  and  emancipation.  Referring  to  the  attitude  and 
efforts  of  the  Abolitionists  and  the  effect  upon  anti-slavery 
sentiment  in  the  state,  he  said: 

"But,  fellow-citizens,  shall  we  suffer  this  meddlesome 
sect  of  Abolitionists  to  blind  our  eyes  to  the  evils  of  slavery 
and  to  tie  up  our  hands  when  the  condition  of  the  country, 
and  the  welfare  of  ourselves  and  our  children,  summon  us 
to  immediate  action?  .  .  . 

"  Having  failed  in  their  first  mode  of  action  by  denun 
ciatory  pamphlets  and  newspapers,  and  by  petitions  to 
Congress,  the  most  violent  class  of  Abolitionists  have  now 
formed  themselves  into  a  political  party  aiming  to  subvert 
the  Federal  Constitution  which  guarantees  the  rights  of 
slaveholders,  and  to  destroy  the  Federal  Union  which  is 
the  glory  and  safeguard  of  us  all.  Thus  they  have  armed 
against  themselves  every  American  patriot;  and  what  is 
most  remarkable,  they  have  met  from  the  opposite  extreme 
those  Southern  politicians  and  ultra  pro-slavery  men — 
called  '  Chivalry '  and  '  Nullifiers, '  who  so  often  predict  and 
threaten  a  dissolution  of  the  Union."2 

Matthew  F.  Maury,  writing  in  1851,  said: 

"  I  am  sure  you  would  rejoice  to  see  the  people  of  Virginia 

^History  of  Virginia,  Howison,  Vol.  II,  p.  519. 
2The  Ruffner  Pamphlet,  Lexington,  1847. 


100       ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS  FROM  1833-1860 

rise  up  to-morrow  and  say,  '  From  and  after  a  future  day, 
say  January  1st,  1855,  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  in 
voluntary  servitude  in  Virginia. '  Although  this  would  not 
strike  the  shackle  from  off  a  single  arm  nor  command  a 
single  slave  to  go  free,  yet  it  would  relieve  our  own  loved 
Virginia  of  that  curse."1 

Bishop  William  Meade  in  1854,  writing  of  slavery,  said : 

"  While  we  must  acknowledge  that  the  advantage  of  the 
African  trade  notwithstanding  the  cruelties  accompanying 
it  has  been  on  the  side  of  that  people  both  temporally  and 
spiritually;  yet  we  can  never  be  brought  to  believe  that 
the  introduction  into,  and  the  multiplication  of  slavery  in 
Virginia  has  advanced  either  her  religious,  political,  or 
agricultural  interests.  On  the  contrary  we  are  confident 
that  it  has  injured  all." 

In  1857,  alluding  to  the  foregoing  statement,  he  wrote: 

"  I  have  been  for  the  last  fifty  years,  and  more  especially 
for  the  last  thirty,  travelling  much  the  length  and  breadth 
of  Virginia,  making  observations  for  myself,  conversing 
with  intelligent  farmers,  politicians,  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
and  other  Christians  on  the  subjects  referred  to  above. 
...  I  have  not  only  reconsidered  them  myself,  but  freely 
conversed  with  many  sound-minded  persons  concerning 
the  views  there  presented;  and  the  result  has  been  an 
increased  conviction  that  they  are  correct  and  have  been 
in  time  past,  and  still  are  held  by  the  great  body  of  our  cit 
izens,  Christians,  and  statesmen."2 

The  statement  of  Howison,  made  in  1848 — that,  "  in  gen 
eral,  the  people  of  Virginia  hold  slavery  to  be  an  enormous 
evil,  bearing  with  fatal  power  upon  their  prosperity,"  is 
confirmed  by  these  conclusions  of  Bishop  Meade,  expressed 
ten  years  later. 

lLife  of  Matthew  F.  Maury,  Corbin,  p.  131. 
20ld  Churches,  Ministers  and  Families  of  Virginia,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
89-90,  note. 


RESULTS  OF  ANTI-SLAVERY  SENTIMENTS         101 

Robert  E.  Lee  writing  in  December,  1856,  said! 

"  In  this  enlightened  age,  there  are  few,  I  believe,  but  will 
acknowledge  that  as  an  institution  slavery  is  a  moral  and 
political  evil  in  any  country.  It  is  useless  to  expatiate 
on  its  disadvantages.  I  think  it,  however,  a  greater  evil 
to  the  white  than  to  the  black  race,  and  while  my  feelings 
are  strongly  enlisted  in  behalf  of  the  latter,  my  sympathies 
are  strongly  for  the  former.  .  .  . 

"  While  we  see  the  course  of  the  final  abolition  of  slavery 
is  onward,  and  we  give  it  the  aid  of  our  prayers  and  all 
justifiable  means  in  our  power,  we  must  leave  the  progress 
as  well  as  the  result  in  His  hands,  who  sees  the  end  and 
chooses  to  work  by  slow  influences."1 

If  it  be  urged  that  despite  the  foregoing  anti-slavery  sen 
timents  the  institution  remained  intrenched  in  the  laws  of 
Virginia,  and  supported  by  a  strong  body  of  public  opinion, 
it  may  be  replied  that  the  views  of  these  Virginians,  and 
others  of  like  mind,  were  nevertheless  productive  of  far- 
reaching  and  beneficent  results.  They  were  effective  in 
robbing  slavery  of  many  of  its  most  abhorrent  and  oppres 
sive  incidents.  Under  the  public  opinion  thus  generated 
the  institution  in  Virginia  assumed,  as  a  rule,  the  patri 
archal  character — master  and  slave  being  bound  by  ties  of 
mutual  obligation  and  affection.  Many  of  the  legal  hard 
ships  inseparable  from  the  system  were  reduced  to  a 
minimum.  Thus  the  breaking  up  of  families,  by  sale  of 
their  members,  was  confined  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the 
distribution  of  estates  and  the  collection  of  debts  by  pro 
cess  of  law.  In  all  the  category  of  disreputable  callings, 
there  was  none  so  despised  as  the  slave-trader.  The 
odium  descended  upon  his  children  and  his  children's 
children.  Against  the  legal  right  to  buy  and  sell  slaves  for 
profit,  this  public  sentiment  lifted  a  strong  arm,  and  ren- 

lLife  of  R.  E.  Lee,  Fitzhugh  Lee,  p.  64. 


102     NUMBER  OF  EMANCIPATIONS  IN  VIRGINIA 

dered  forever  odious  the  name  of  "  Negro-trader. "  The 
good  results  of  these  conditions  were  evidenced  in  the  higher 
measure  of  character,  courtesy  and  capacity,  which,  as  a 
whole,  distinguished  the  negroes  of  Virginia. 

The  position  of  these  Virginians  was  also  of  great  im 
portance  in  keeping  before  the  mind  of  the  people  the  con 
ception  that  slavery  was  an  abnormal  institution,  and  that 
with  her  growth  in  wealth  and  white  population,  Virginia 
could  and  would  free  herself  from  what  Robert  E.  Lee  de 
scribed  as  "  a  moral  and  political  evil. "  Furthermore  these 
sentiments  were  productive  of  an  actual  emancipation,  the 
character  and  extent  of  which  has  been  little  appreciated. 
If  devotion  to  the  cause  is  to  be  measured  by  the  actual 
manumissions  effected,  then  Virginia's  emancipators  could 
contemplate  with  pride  their  record.  George  Wythe  lib 
erated  his  slaves  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution.  Robert 
E.  Lee,  executor  of  George  Washington  Parke  Custis,  left 
his  place  at  the  front  with  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia 
to  emancipate  the  slaves  of  his  testator  as  directed  by  the 
latter  in  his  will.1  Between  these  two  there  stretches  a 
long  line  of  emancipators,  who,  without  compensation, 
liberated  thousands  of  slaves.  Mr.  Ballagh  estimates  this 
number  as  high  as  one  hundred  thousand.2  These  slave 
holders  incurred  not  only  the  pecuniary  loss  of  this  great 
emancipation,  but  in  many  instances  the  expense  of  col 
onization.  When,  too,  it  is  remembered  that  their 
communities  were  often  thus  further  burdened  by  the 
problems  incident  to  the  presence  of  an  increasing  body 
of  freedmen,  the  full  import  of  the  beneficence  is  better 
appreciated.  That  many  of  these  ex-slaves,  despite  statutes 

lWill  Book  No.  4,  p.  267,  Clerk's  Office,  Alexandria  County, 
Virginia. 

^History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  Ballagh,  p.  144. 


NUMBER  OF  EMANCIPATIONS  IN  VIRGINIA         108 

and  the  efforts  of  masters  and  others  to  settle  them  at 
points  beyond  the  state,  remained  in  Virginia  is  attested  by 
the  Federal  census,  from  which  it  appears  that  in  1860 
there  were  still  fifty-eight  thousand  and  forty-two  free 
negroes  within  her  borders. 


XVI 

SPECIMENS  or  DEEDS  AND  WILLS  EMANCIPATING 

SLAVES 

AN  examination  of  a  few  of  the  great  number  of  deeds 
and  wills  which  are  to  be  found  on  record  throughout 
Virginia  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  motives  of  her  eman 
cipators  and  the  many  difficulties  which  confronted  them. 
These  emancipations  may  be  grouped  in  three  periods, — 
from  1782  to  1806,  from  1806  to  1833,  and  from  1833 
to  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War.  Each  of  these  periods 
had  its  peculiar  characteristics  with  reference  to  the 
problem  of  emancipation  in  Virginia.  From  1782  to  1806 
the  law  permitted  emancipation  without  qualification, 
and  public  opinion,  in  the  state,  while  deploring  the 
existence  of  slavery  was  willing  to  permit  the  slaveholders 
to  control,  in  large  measure,  the  times  and  methods  of  its 
abolition.  The  period  from  1806  to  1833  marked  the 
years  when  anti-slavery  sentiment  showed  increasing 
strength.  The  antipathy,  however,  to  the  presence  of 
the  free  negro  was  equally  pronounced  and  resulted  in  the 
laws  which  required  his  removal  from  the  state  within  a 
year  after  his  emancipation.  This  requirement  invested 
emancipation  with  new,  practical,  as  well  as  ethical  diffi 
culties.  This  period  opened  with  the  act  which  denied 
to  slaveholders  the  unqualified  right  of  emancipation — 
and  it  ended  with  the  Nat  Turner  Insurrection  and  the 
futile  attempts  of  the  General  Assembly  to  successfully 
meet  the  difficulties  of  the  situation.  The  years  from 

104 


SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1782-1806    105 

1833  to  1860  were  burdened  with  all  the  difficulties  of 
the  previous  periods,  as  well  as  with  the  embarrassments 
growing  out  of  the  efforts  of  the  Abolitionists  beyond 
the  state  and  of  the  pro-slavery  advocates  within  her 
borders. 

An  examination  of  the  following  extracts  from  the 
deeds  and  wills  of  emancipators  will  serve  to  illustrate 
the  truth  of  these  views. 

Extract  from  deed  of  Joseph  Hill,  of  Isle  of  Wight 
County,  dated  March  6th,  1783: 

"I,  Joseph  Hill,  of  Isle  of  Wight  County  in  Virginia, 
after  full  and  deliberate  consideration,  and  agreeable  to 
our  Bill  of  Rights,  am  fully  persuaded  that  freedom  is 
the  natural  life  of  all  mankind,  and  that  no  law,  moral  or 
divine,  hath  given  me  a  just  right  or  property  in  the 
persons  of  any  of  my  fellow-creatures,  and  desirous  to  fulfil 
the  injunction  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  by 
doing  to  all  others  as  I  would  be  done  by  in  a  like  situation 
...  do  hereby  emancipate  and  set  free  all  and  every  of 
the  above  named  slaves,  &C."1 

Extract  from  deed  of  Charles  Moorman,  of  Campbell 
County,  dated  September  1st,  1789: 

"I,  Charles  Moorman,  from  mature  consideration  and 
the  conviction  of  my  own  mind,  being  fully  persuaded 
that  freedom  is  the  natural  right  of  all  mankind,  and  that 
no  law,  moral  or  divine,  has  given  me  a  right  to  or  property 
in  the  persons  of  any  of  my  fellow-creatures,  and  being 
desirous  to  fulfil  the  injunction  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour, 
Jesus  Christ,  by  doing  to  others  as  I  would  be  done  by — 
do  therefore  declare  that  having  under  my  care  twenty- 
eight  slaves,  (naming  them),  I  do  for  myself,  my  heirs, 
executors  and  administrators,  hereby  release  unto  them 

lDeed  Book  No.  15,  p.  122,  in  Clerk's  Office,  Isle  of  Wight  County, 
Virginia. 


106     SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,    1782-1806 

the  said  slaves  all  my  rights,  interest,  claims  or  pretensions 
of  claims  whatsoever  to  their  persons  or  any  estate  they 
may  acquire,  &C."1 

Extracts  from  deeds  of  Robert  Carter,  of  Westmoreland 
County,  each  dated  the  1st  day  of  January,  1793 : 

"Whereas  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Virginia  did  in  the  year  seventeen  hundred  and  eighty- 
two  enact  a  law  entitled  'An  Act  to  Authorize  the  Manu 
mission  of  Slaves/  know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  I, 
Robert  Carter,  of  Nomony  Hall,  in  the  County  of  West 
moreland,  do  under  the  said  act  for  myself,  my  heirs, 
executors  and  administrators,  emancipate  and  forever 
set  free  from  slavery  the  following  slaves."  (Here  follow 
the  names  of  the  slaves,  twenty-seven  in  number.)2 

And  on  the  same  day  a  similar  deed  emancipating  thirty 
slaves.3 

Extract  from  deed  of  Francis  Preston,  of  Washington 
County,  dated  the  20th  day  of  September,  1793: 

"Whereas  my  negro  man,  John  (alias)  John  Broady, 
claims  a  promise  of  freedom  from  his  former  master, 
General  William  Campbell,  for  his  faithful  attendance 
on  him  at  all  times,  and  more  particularly  while  he  was 
in  the  army  in  the  last  war,  and  I  who  claim  the  said  negro, 
in  right  of  my  wife,  daughter  of  said  General  William 
Campbell,  feeling  a  desire  to  emancipate  the  said  negro 
man  John  as  well  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  above  mentioned 
promise  as  the  gratification  of  being  instrumental  of 
promoting  a  participation  of  liberty  to  a  fellow-creature, 
who  by  nature  is  entitled  thereto,  do  by  these  presents, 

lDeed  Book  No.  2,  p.  418,  in  Clerk's  Office,  Campbell  County, 
Virginia. 

*Deed  and  Will  Book  No.  18,  p.  213,  in  the  Clerk's  Office,  West 
moreland  County,  Virginia. 

'Idem,  p.  244. 


SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1782-1806    107 

for  myself,  my  heirs,  executors  and  administrators,  fully 
emancipate  and  make  free,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  the 
said  negro  man  John  (alias)  John  Brody  from  me  and  my 
heirs  forever." 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Richard  Randolph,  Jr.,  ad 
mitted  to  record  in  Clerk's  Office  of  Prince  Edward  County, 
April  8th,  1797: 

"  In  the  first  place — to  make  retribution  as  far  as  I  am 
able  to  an  unfortunate  race  of  bondsmen  over  whom 
my  ancestors  have  usurped  and  exercised  the  most  lawless 
and  monstrous  tyranny,  and  in  whom  my  countrymen 
by  their  iniquitous  laws  in  contradiction  of  their  own 
Declaration  of  Rights  .  .  .  have  vested  me  with  absolute 
property;  ...  to  exculpate  myself  to  those  who  may 
perchance  think  or  hear  of  me  after  death  from  the  black 
crime  which  otherwise  would  be  imputed  to  me  of  volun 
tarily  holding  the  above  mentioned  miserable  beings  in 
the  same  state  of  abject  slavery  in  which  I  found  them 
on  receiving  my  patrimony  at  lawful  age;  to  impress  my 
children  with  just  horror  at  a  crime  so  enormous  and 
indelible,  and  to  adjure  them  in  the  last  words  of  a  fond 
father  never  to  participate  in  it  ...  I  do  declare  that  it 
is  my  will  and  desire,  nay,  most  anxious  wish,  that  my 
negroes,  all  of  them,  be  liberated,  and  I  do  declare  them 
by  this  writing  free  and  emancipated  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  whatsoever/'3 

lDeed  Book  for  Year  1793,  in  Clerk's  Office  of  Washington 
County,  Abingdon,  Virginia. 

2See  Will  Book  for  1797,  Clerk's  Office,  Prince  Edward  County, 
Farmville,  Virginia. 

Note :  Mr.  Randolph  explained  in  his  will  that  he  did  not  eman 
cipate  his  slaves  by  deed  because  at  the  date  his  will  was  written 
they  were  still  bound  for  certain  debts  of  his  father  from  whom 
he  inherited  them.  In  accordance  with  his  will  they  were  all, 
some  two  hundred  in  number,  finally  set  free.  Richard  Randolph 
was  the  brother  of  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  and  a  stepson  of 
St.  George  Tucker. 


108    SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1782-1806 

Extract  from  the  will  of  George  Washington,  dated 
July  9th,  1799,  recorded  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  Fairfax 
County: 

"Upon  the  decease  of  my  wife,  it  is  my  will  and  desire 
that  all  the  slaves  whom  I  hold  in  my  own  right  shall 
receive  their  freedom.  To  emancipate  them  during  her 
life  would,  though  earnestly  wished  by  me,  be  attended 
with  such  insuperable  difficulties  on  account  of  their 
intermixture  by  marriage  with  the  dower  negroes  as  to 
excite  the  most  painful  sensations,  if  not  disagreeable 
consequences  to  the  latter,  while  both  descriptions  are  in 
the  occupancy  of  the  same  proprietor;  it  not  being  in  my 
power  under  the  tenure  by  which  the  dower  negroes  are 
held  to  manumit  them." 

The  will  further  provides  that  all  slaves  who  at  the 
time  of  their  emancipation  are  unable,  by  reason  of  old 
age,  bodily  infirmities,  or  youth,  to  support  themselves 
shall  be  cared  for  out  of  his  estate,  the  testator  declaring : 

"I  do  moreover  most  pointedly  and  most  solemnly 
enjoin  it  upon  my  executors  hereafter  named,  or  the 
survivors  of  them,  to  see  that  this  clause  respecting  slaves 
and  every  part  thereof  be  religiously  fulfilled  at  the  epoch 
at  which  it  is  directed  to  take  place  without  evasion, 
neglect  or  delay,  after  the  crops  which  may  then  be  in 
the  ground  are  harvested,  particularly  as  it  respects  the 
aged  and  infirm;  seeing  that  a  regular  and  permanent  fund 
be  established  for  their  support  as  long  as  there  are  sub 
jects  requiring  it."1 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Jesse  Bonner,  of  Dinwiddie, 
dated  8th  April,  1797,  and  admitted  to  probate  17th 
April,  1803: 

"Item:  I  leave  the  use  of  the  plantation  whereon  I  now 
1Lt/«  of  Washington,  Irving,  Vol.  V,  p.  439. 


SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1806-1833    109 

live  and  my  New  Survey  adjoining  it  to  my  beloved  wife, 
Rebecca  Bonner,  during  her  life  or  widowhood;  also  all  the 
negroes  belonging  to  me. 

"Item:  My  will  and  desire  is  that  all  the  above  negroes 
which  I  have  lent  to  my  beloved  wife,  Rebecca  Bonner, 
namely  (here  the  slaves,  fifteen  in  number,  are  named), 
with  all  their  increase  from  this  day,  be  emancipated  and 
go  free  at  the  death  or  marriage  of  my  beloved  wife, 
Rebecca  Bonner. 

"  Item :  My  will  and  desire  is  that  if  I  have  no  child  the 
plantation  whereon  I  now  live  together  with  my  New 
Survey,  be  given  to  my  negroes  and  their  heirs  forever, 
after  the  death  or  marriage  of  my  beloved  wife,  Rebecca 
Bonner.''1 


The  reader  will  observe,  that  in  many  of  the  foregoing 
extracts  the  anti-slavery  sentiments  of  the  emancipators 
are  freely  and  vigorously  expressed  and  the  act  of  eman 
cipation  is,  in  many  instances,  based  upon  the  conviction 
that  slavery  was  repugnant  alike  to  the  political  institu 
tions  of  the  state  and  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion. 

During  the  time  from  1806-1833  there  seems  to  have 
been  a  diminution  in  the  number  of  emancipations,  espe 
cially  in  the  earlier  years  of  that  period.  This  was  doubt 
less  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  difficulties,  resulting  from 
the  law,  which  required  the  removal  of  the  slave  from 
the  state  within  twelve  months  next  succeeding  his  eman 
cipation.  However,  with  the  increase  in  the  facilities 
of  travel,  some  of  these  practical  difficulties  were  over 
come,  and  during  the  latter  years  of  the  period  the  number 
of  emancipations  annually  made  was  as  large  as,  if  not 
larger  than,  previous  to  the  enactment  of  the  law. 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Charles  Ewell,  of  Prince  William 

JSee  Will  Book  for  Year  1803,  Dinwiddie  Court-House,  Virginia. 


110    SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1806-1833 

County,  dated  8th  October,  1823,  and  admitted  to  probate 
3rd  November,  1823: 

"  It  is  my  will  that  all  the  increase  of  my  negroes  named 
shall  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five,  and  their  increase, 
if  any,  to  be  free  at  the  same  age  (those  only  who  were 
born  before  their  parents  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-four), 
those  born  after  to  be  liberated  with  their  mothers/'1 

Extract  from  the  will  of  John  Smith,  of  Sussex  County, 
dated  9th  November,  1825,  and  admitted  to  probate  2nd 
March,  1826: 

"At  the  death  of  my  beloved  wife,  I  direct  that  all  of 
my  negroes,  without  regard  to  age,  sex  or  condition,  with 
all  their  future  increase,  be,  by  my  executor,  sent  to  the 
African  Colonization  Settlement,  established  for  the  removal 
of  free  black  persons  of  color  from  the  United  States; 
and  believing  freedom  to  be  the  natural  birthright  of  all 
persons  and  having  spent  many  of  my  best  days  in  defense 
thereof,  I  do  hereby  declare  all  of  my  said  slaves  or  negroes, 
with  their  future  increase  ...  to  be  emancipated  and 
free  .  .  .  from  and  after  the  death  of  my  said  wife.  And 
I  do  hereby  give  and  grant  to  each  of  said  negroes  so 
emancipated,  without  regard  to  age,  sex  or  condition,  one 
good  serviceable  hat,  one  pair  shoes  and  stockings,  blanket 
and  one  year's  provisions,  exclusive  of  ship  provisions 
on  board,  to  carry  with  them.  ...  I  hereby  direct  my 
executors  to  pay  all  expenses  of  removing  said  eman 
cipated  slaves  out  of  any  money  that  may  be  in  their 
hands  belonging  to  my  estate."2 

Extract  from  the  will  of  John  Ward,  Sr.,  of  Pittsylvania 


Will  Book  M.,  p.  103,  Prince  William  County,  Virginia. 

2See  Will  Book  K.,  p.  322,  Clerk's  Office  of  Sussex  County. 

Note:  The  inventory  of  Smith's  estate  shows  that  he  owned 
forty-three  slaves  at  the  time  of  his  death.  Testator  was  a  soldier 
in  the  Revolutionary  Army. 


SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND   WILLS,   1806-1833    111 

County,  dated  the  30th  day  of  July,  1826  and  recorded  the 
20th  of  November,  1826: 

"It  is  my  will  and  desire  that  all  my  slaves  now  living 
or  which  may  be  living  at  the  time  of  my  death  be  free  and 
I  do  hereby  bequeath  to  each  and  every  one  of  them  their 
freedom  immediately  upon  my  death  in  as  full  and  unlimited 
a  manner  as  the  laws  of  Virginia  will  admit  of.  But  should 
any  of  my  slaves  choose  not  to  avail  themselves  of  this  be 
quest  of  their  freedom  with  the  conditions  which  the  law 
may  annex,  then  it  is  my  will  and  desire  that  they  have  the 
privilege  of  choosing  their  master  who  may  take  them  at 
the  valuation  of  two  good  men,  to  be  chosen  by  my  exec 
utors,  and  should  the  females  thus  electing  choose  to  keep 
any  of  their  children  with  them  it  is  my  will  that  said 
children  be  at  liberty  to  obtain  their  freedom  at  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years  in  the  same  manner.  ...  I  give  to  all 
my  slaves  over  fifteen  years  at  the  time  of  my  death  each 
the  sum  of  twenty  dollars — excepting  Davy  and  Nancy, 
having  already  given  them  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars 
each."1 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Martha  E.  Peyton,  of  Prince 
William  County,  dated  the  30th  June,  1831,  and  admitted 
to  probate  October  3rd,  1831 : 

"Secondly,  I  do  hereby  will  and  direct  that  after  my 
debts  are  paid  in  the  manner  aforesaid  that  all  my  negroes 
without  exception  shall  be  emancipated  and  have  their 
freedom;  they  having  served  me  during  my  life  and  as  I 
am  unwilling  for  them  to  be  kept  in  slavery  or  owned  by  any 
person  after  my  death."2 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Aylette  Hawes,  of  Rappahan- 
nock  County,  dated  the  9th  August,  1832,  and  admitted 
to  probate  7th  October,  1833: 

'See  Will  Book  No.  I,  p.  109,  Clerk's  Office,  Pittsylvania  County, 
Virginia. 

2See  Will  Book  N.,  p.  383,  Prince  William  County,  Virginia. 


112    SPECIMENS   OF   DEEDS   AND   WILLS,    1806-1833 

"I  do  hereby  free  and  emancipate  all  my  slaves  that  I 
may  own  at  my  death,  that  I  may  not  hereafter  dispose 
of;  such  of  the  said  slaves  that  are  old  and  infirm,  I  wish  to 
have  the  liberty  of  choosing  their  place  of  residence  with 
any  of  my  relations,  and  to  receive  from  my  estate  such 
assistance  as,  with  the  work  they  are  able  to  do,  will  render 
them  profitable  without  being  an  encumbrance  where  they 
live ;  and  to  Jack,  who,  besides  being  old  and  infirm,  is  also 
afflicted  in  his  legs,  I  leave  fifty  dollars.  Such  of  my  said 
slaves  as  are  so  nearly  white  as  to  render  it  unsafe  for  them 
to  go  to  Liberia  I  desire  may  be  sent  to  the  State  of  Ohio,  or 
where  slavery  is  not  tolerated,  at  the  expense  of  my  estate. 
I  desire  my  said  slaves  thus  sent  at  the  expense  of  my 
estate  to  Ohio,  to  be  put  under  the  protection  and  patron 
age  of  David  S.  Dodge  and  his  family  and  that  the  said 
David  S.  may  be  amply  compensated  from  my  estate  for 
any  trouble  or  expense  he  may  be  at  in  patronizing  the  said 
slaves.  I  desire  all  my  other  slaves  to  be  transferred  to  the 
proper  agent  of  the  African  Colonization  Society,  with 
twenty  dollars  each,  for  their  transportation  to  Liberia."1 

Extract  from  will  of  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke,  dated 
May,  1819,  admitted  to  probate  in  1833: 

"I  give  to  my  slaves  their  freedom,  to  which  my  con 
science  tells  me  they  are  justly  entitled.  It  has  a  long 
time  been  a  matter  of  deepest  regret  to  me  that  the  cir 
cumstances  under  which  I  inherited  them  and  the  obstacles 
thrown  in  the  way  by  the  laws  of  the  land  have  prevented 
my  emancipating  them  in  my  lifetime,  which  it  is  my  full 
intention  to  do  in  case  I  can  accomplish  it." 

The  will  makes  provision  for  the  purchase  of  land  in  some 
one  of  the  free  states  and  for  removing  the  ex-slaves, 

'See  Will  Book  A.,  p.  16,  Clerk's  Office,  Rappahannock  County, 
Virginia. 

Note:  Hawes  was  for  many  years  a  member  of  Congress  from 
Virginia  and  the  inventory  of  his  estate  shows  that  at  the  time 
of  his  death,  he  owned  one  hundred  and  five  slaves. 


SPECIMENS   OF   DEEDS   AND   WILLS,    1806-1833     113 

some  three  hundred  and  fifty  in  number,  to  their  new  homes 
to  be  provided  for  them  thereon,  the  same  to  be  equipped 
with  farming  utensils,  etc.1 

Extract  from  will  of  William  H.  Fitzhugh  of  Ravens- 
worth,  Fairfax  County,  dated  March  21,  1829: 

"After  the  year  1850  I  leave  all  my  negroes  uncon 
ditionally  free,  with  the  privilege  of  having  the  expenses 
of  their  removal  to  whatever  places  of  residence  they  may 
select,  defrayed.  And  as  an  encouragement  to  them  to 
emigrate  to  the  American  Colony  on  the  coast  of  Africa, 
where  I  believe  their  happiness  will  be  most  permanently 
secure,  I  desire  not  only  that  the  expense  of  their  emigra 
tion  may  be  paid  but  that  the  sum  of  fifty  dollars  shall  be 
paid  to  each  one  so  emigrating  on  his  or  her  arrival  in 
Africa." 

The  will  makes  provision  for  a  fund  to  carry  out  the  fore 
going  directions.2 

lLife  of  John  Randolph,  Garland,  Vol.  II,  p.  149. 

Will  Book  No.  1,  p.  57,  Clerk's  Office,  Fairfax  County,  Virginia. 

Mr.  Fitzhugh  was  the  maternal  uncle  of  Mrs.  Robert  E.  Lee. 


XVII 

SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS  EMANCIPATING 
SLAVES     (Concluded) 

THE  deeds  and  wills  during  the  period  from  1833  to  the 
Civil  War  made  increasingly  large  provisions  for  the  removal 
and  colonization  of  the  freedmen.  It  may  be  also  noted 
that  arraignments  of  slavery  became  very  rare  during  that 
period.  The  same  influences  which  almost  hushed  the 
voice  of  anti-slavery  orators  in  Virginia,  were  effective  in 
banishing  from  the  deeds  and  wills  of  emancipators  expres 
sions  which  might  give  aid  and  comfort  to  the  men  who 
were  daily  denouncing  the  civilization  and  morality  of  the 
state.  Though  these  arraignments  might  almost  stop  the 
discussion  of  slavery  in  Virginia,  yet  they  could  not  destroy 
the  sentiment  in  favor  of  emancipation.  The  liberation  of 
slaves  continued  without  diminution  down  to  the  outbreak 
of  the  Civil  War.  It  may  be  also  noted  that  these  instances 
of  emancipation  go  far  to  disprove  the  charge  that  the 
Virginia  friends  of  negro  colonization  were  inspired  simply 
by  a  desire  to  remove  the  free  negroes  from  the  state  in 
order  to  make  more  sure  the  tenure  by  which  they  held 
their  slaves.  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke,  General  Black 
burn,  Bishop  Meade,  William  Henry  Fitzhugh  and  George 
Washington  Parke  Custis  were  all  leaders  in  the  coloniza 
tion  movement,  and  all  of  them  emancipated  their  slaves. 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Samuel  Blackburn  of  Bath 
County,  dated  the  30th  of  October,  1834: 

"That  all  the  slaves  of  which  I  may  die  seized  and 

114 


SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,    1833-1860    115 

possessed,  without  distinction  of  age  or  sex,  be,  and  they 
are  hereby,  declared  free  and  forever  emancipated,  &c. 
.  .  .  And  as  soon  as  the  necessary  arrangements  can  be 
made  by  my  executors  they  shall  be  transported  to  the 
American  Colony  in  Liberia  and  the  expense  of  transporta 
tion  be  charged  upon  my  estate,  real  and  personal.  It  is, 
however,  expressly  and  implicitly  understood  that  if  any 
of  my  slaves  aforesaid  refuse  to  accept  this  boon  it  will  be 
the  duty  of  my  executors  and  they  are  hereby  requested 
so  to  do,  to  sell  to  the  highest  bidder  in  terms  of  the  sale 
all  who  thus  refuse  and  persevere  in  refusal,  as  slaves  for 
life.  And  here  let  me  admonish  and  warn  these  people 
how  they  let  slip  this  golden  moment  of  emancipating  them 
selves  and  their  posterity  forever  from  that  state  of  slavery 
and  degradation  in  which  I  found  them  and  in  which  many 
of  them  have  long  served  me." 

By  a  codicil  the  testator  provided  that  with  respect  to 
any  slaves  who  might  refuse  to  accept  their  freedom  upon 
condition  that  they  be  transported  to  Liberia,  his  executors 
should  not  sell  them  separately  but  in  families  and  by 
private  sale  to  considerate  masters.1 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Carter  H.  Edlow  of  Prince 
George  County,  dated  the  20th  of  March,  1838,  and  ad 
mitted  to  probate  the  13th  of  August,  1844: 

"  I  desire  that  my  estate  shall  be  kept  together  and  cul 
tivated  to  the  best  advantage  until  a  sufficient  sum  can  be 
raised  to  pay  my  debts,  should  there  be  any  deficiency  in 
the  amount  of  money  on  hand  and  debts  due  me,  and  to 
raise  a  sufficient  sum  to  pay  for  the  transportation  of  my 
slaves  to  any  free  state  or  colony  which  they  may  prefer 
and  give  to  each  slave  fifty  dollars  on  their  departure.  .  .  . 
It  is  not  my  wish  to  force  them  away  without  their  consent; 
in  the  event  of  any  of  them  preferring  to  remain  in  slavery 
they  must  take  the  disposition  hereinafter  directed/' 

lWill  Book  No.  14,  p.  263,  Clerk's  Office,  Bath  County,  Virginia. 


116    SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1833-1860 

The  testator  then  devises  the  residuum  of  his  estate  to 
his  nieces,  along  with  such  of  his  slaves  as  refuse  to  accept 
freedom.1 

Extract  from  deed  of  William  Meade,  of  Clarke  County, 
dated  the  29th  of  April,  1843: 

"  Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  I,  William  Meade, 
of  the  County  of  Clarke  and  State  of  Virginia,  with  a  view  of 
preparing  a  certain  female  mulatto  slave,  named  Lucy,  for 
the  enjoyment  of  the  freedom  hereinafter  bestowed  upon 
her,  have  .  .  .  bound  the  said  female,  Lucy,  now  about 
seventeen  years  of  age,  to  a  certain  J.  W.  Stockton,  residing 
in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  until  the  said  Lucy  arrives 
at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  &c.  ...  do  give  and  grant 
unto  the  said  Lucy  her  freedom  forever  and  do  hereby 
manumit  her  from  my  service,  forever,  &c."2 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Thacker  V.  Webb,  of  Orange 
County,  admitted  to  probate  August  28th,  1843: 

"  I  will  and  direct  that  at  and  after  my  death,  my  slaves, 
James,  Joseph,  Kendall,  Judy  and  all  the  remainder  of  them 
both  old  and  young  (not  enumerated  and  specified  by  their 
respective  names)  and  all  the  future  increase  of  all  the 
females  be,  and  they  are  hereby  fully  and  entirely  liberated, 
and  forever  emancipated  and  set  free  from  the  involuntary 
service  of  all  and  every  person  or  persons  whatsoever;  and 
that  no  operation  of  any  law  whatsoever  shall  be  allowed, 
or  in  any  wise  prevent  the  said  slaves  from  receiving  and 
enjoying  their  full,  entire  and  complete  freedom  and 
emancipation,  I  will  and  direct  that  my  executor  or  admin 
istrator  hereinafter  named,  shall  procure  a  home  for  the 
slaves,  or  persons  above  liberated,  in  some  non-slavehold- 

lWill  Book  No.  1,  p.  90,  New  Records,  Clerk's  Office,  Prince 
George  County,  Virginia. 

'Deed  Book  B.,  p.  467,  Clerk's  Office,  Clarke  County,  Virginia. 

Note:  William  Meade  was  the  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Diocese 
of  Virginia  from  1829  to  1862. 


SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1833-1860    117 

ing  state,  and  for  this  purpose  I  hereby  appropriate  the 
sum  of  four  thousand  dollars,  to  be  laid  out  in  land, 
farming  utensils,  and  bearing  their  expenses,  and  if  any 
overplus  shall  remain,  I  direct  it  to  be  equally  divided 
among  them  all,  and  given  to  the  fathers  and  mothers  for 
their  joint  use  and  benefit."1 

Extract  from  will  of  Albert  Early,  of  Madison  County, 
dated  the  25th  of  May,  1839,  admitted  to  probate  25th 
day  of  November,  1847: 

"I  give  and  bequeath  unto  my  above  named  executors 
all  the  negro  slaves  that  I  now  own  or  may  own  ...  I  do 
most  solemnly  and  seriously  request  and  exhort  them  to 
do  with  my  said  negro  slaves  as  I  now  prescribe,  that  it 
is  my  wish  that  they  .  .  .  should  be  liberated  so  that  they 
may  enjoy  all  the  liberties  and  blessings  of  a  free  and 
independent  people,  and  not  approving  the  custom  of 
liberating  slaves  to  remain  in  the  United  States,  I  would 
recommend  to  my  said  executors  to  select  for  their  resi 
dence  some  section  of  country  which  .  .  .  may  supply 
them,  the  above  named  negro  slaves,  with  all  the  comforts 
and  necessaries  that  may  render  their  lives  as  agreeable 
and  easy  as  possible/' 

The  will  further  authorizes  the  executors  to  sell  so  much 
of  the  lands  and  other  property  of  the  testator  as  may  be 
necessary  to  pay  his  debts  and  then  to  apply  so  much  of 
the  proceeds  as  the  above  named  "executors  may  think 
proper  for  the  removal  and  settlement  of  my  above  named 
negro  slaves." 

The  will  concludes: 

"That  it  is  owing  to  no  malignity  of  feelings  towards 
my  relations  that  I  have  thus  disposed  of  my  negro  slaves, 
but  because  I  think  they  own  enough  of  them  without 

lWtil  Book  No.  10,  p.  17,  Clerk's  Office,  Orange  County,  Virginia. 


118    SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,    1833-1860 

mine  and  I  think  that  they  are  a  general  evil  and  withal 
I  deprecate  the  principle."1 

Extract  from  the  will  of  John  Warwick,  of  Amherst 
County,  admitted  to  probate  March  20th,  1848 : 

"I,  John  Warwick,  of  the  County  of  Amherst,  ...  do 
make,  publish  and  declare  this  my  last  true  will  and 
testament.  .  .  . 

"First:  The  future  condition  of  my  slaves  has  long  been 
a  subject  of  anxious  concern  with  me,  and  it  is  my  deliberate 
intention,  wish,  and  desire  that  the  whole  of  them  be 
manumitted  and  set  free  as  soon  after  my  demise  as  the 
growing  crops  shall  be  safe  and  the  annual  hires  terminated, 
not  later  than  the  end  of  the  year  of  my  death,  to  be 
removed,  or  so  many  of  them  as  I  do  not  manumit  and 
send  to  a  free  state  during  my  life,  with  the  exception 
hereinafter  named,  and  settled  in  one  or  more  of  the  free 
states  of  this  Union  under  the  care  and  direction  of  my 
executors,  hereinafter  appointed.  Indiana  is  my  choice. 

"Second:  To  carry  out  the  above  bequest  .  .  .  next  to 
the  payment  of  any  debts  I  may  owe,  my  funeral  expenses, 
and  the  charges  of  administration  of  my  estate,  I  hereby 
declare  that  it  is  my  wish  and  intention  that  my  slaves 
shall  on  being  emancipated  have  the  whole  of  my  estate 
now  in  being,  or  hereafter  to  be  acquired,  .  .  .  for  the 
purpose  of  creating  a  suitable  fund  in  the  hands  of  my 
executors  for  their  comfortable  clothing,  outfit,  travelling 
expenses  and  settlement  in  their  new  homes".2 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Frances  Eppes  of  Henrico 
County,  admitted  to  probate  February  7th,  1848. 

'See  Will  Book  No.  8,  p.  202,  Clerk's  Office,  Madison  County, 
Virginia. 

2See  Will  Book  No.  11,  p.  577,  Clerk's  Office,  Amherst  County, 
Virginia. 

Note:  The  appraisement  of  Mr.  Warwick's  estate  showed  that 
he  owned  seventy-four  slaves  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  his 
executor,  Dr.  David  Patteson,  removed  them  to  the  State  of  Ohio. 


SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1833-1860    119 

"It  is  my  will  and  desire  that  all  my  slaves  shall  be 
emancipated  and  set  free — and  I  do  hereby  emancipate 
and  set  free  the  following  slaves,  and  the  increase  of  the 
females  among  them,  namely — "  (Here  follow  the  names 
of  the  slaves,  twenty-seven  in  number) — "And  with  a 
view  to  accomplish  this  my  intention  in  an  effectual  manner 
it  is  my  will  and  desire  that  at  my  decease  all  my  slaves 
of  every  description  be  committed  to  the  special  care 
and  trust  of  my  friends  Joseph  J.  Pleasants  of  the  County 
of  Hanover,  in  this  state,  and  Joseph  Jones  of  the  State  of 
Ohio.  .  .  . 

"It  is  my  will  and  desire  that  after  all  my  just  debts 
are  paid,  all  the  property  of  every  description  of  which  I 
may  die  seized,  or  the  proceeds  arising  therefrom  as  may 
seem  best  to  my  executors  hereinafter  named,  be  divided 
among  the  said  slaves  so  emancipated  in  such  manner  as 
the  executors  may  deem  fair  and  proper.  "* 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Sampson  Sanders,  of  Cabell 
County,  admitted  to  probate  July  9th,  1849: 

"It  is  my  will  and  desire  that  all  my  slaves  of  every 
age  and  sex  be  free  at  the  time  of  my  death  from  all  in 
voluntary  servitude.  .  .  . 

"  I  hereby  direct  my  executors  ...  to  collect  so  much 
of  my  estate  as  may  be  necessary  to  buy  land  for  my  said 
slaves  in  the  State  of  Indiana  or  some  one  of  the  free  states 
of  the  United  States  of  America  as  may  be  necessary  for 
their  comfortable  support  .  .  .  assigning  each  head  of  a 
family  their  proper  proportion  of  land  .  .  .  binding  the 
heads  of  families  and  other  young  men  for  the  comfortable 
support  of  the  old  and  decrepit  or  weakly  slaves  during 
their  natural  lives.  I  hereby  give  and  bequeath  to  my 
said  slaves  $15,000.00  to  be  paid  out  of  my  estate  by  my 
executors  aforesaid."2 

Will  Book  No.  12,  p.  495,  Clerk's  Office,  Henrico  County,  Virginia. 
*Will   Book   A.,   p.  391,    Clerk's  Office,    Cabell  County,    West 
Virginia. 


120    SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1833-1860 

Extract  of  will  of  Joseph  Early,  of  Madison  County, 
dated  22nd  of  December,  1852,  and  admitted  to  probate 
August  24th,  1854: 

"  My  will  is  that  my  executors  hereinafter  named  send 
my  negroes  that  I  now  have  to  Liberia— give  each  of  the 
men, — three  in  number — fifty  dollars  each  and  Verindy 
and  all  her  children,  one  hundred  dollars,  to  take  with 
them,  besides  getting  them  out,  and  bacon  enough  to  last 
them  six  months  after  they  get  to  Liberia/'1 

Extract  from  the  will  of  William  D.  Jennings,  of  Henrico 
County,  admitted  to  probate  August  1st,  1853 : 

"  I  hereby  manumit,  emancipate  and  set  free  all  the  rest 
and  residue  of  my  slaves,  viz.:"  (Here  follow  the  names 
of  the  slaves,  thirty-four  in  number)  "and  request  that 
they  shall  be  sent  to  and  settled  in  Africa,  in  some  good 
location,  to  be  approved  by  my  executor,  after  conference 
with  the  agent  of  the  American  Colonization  Society,  at 
Washington  City." 

The  will  further  provides  that  after  paying  the  debts  of 
the  estate  the  balance  shall  be  applied: 

"  To  the  expenses  of  removal  to,  and  settling  in  Africa, 
of  all  the  slaves  hereby  emancipated.  After  defraying  the 
expenses  of  their  said  removal  to  Africa,  it  is  my  will  and 
desire  that  the  whole  surplus  of  my  estate  then  remaining 
(after  paying  debts  and  legacies)  shall  be  divided  among 
my  said  emancipated  slaves  as  follows,  viz.: — "  (Here 
follow  the  names  of  the  slaves)  ,2 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Traverse  D.  Herndon,  of  Fau- 
quier  County,  dated  the  2nd  of  December,  1854,  and 
admitted  to  probate  25th  of  December,  1854: 

lWill  Book  No.  9,  p.  421,  Clerk's  Office,  Madison  County,  Virginia. 
Will  Book  No.    14,   p.   188,  Clerk's  Office,  Henrico  County, 
Virginia. 


SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,    1833-1860    121 

"Third:  I  desire  that  the  servants  formerly  the  property 
of  Col.  George  Love,  whose  names  and  number  have  been 
sent  on  to  the  Colonization  Society  (The  number  thus 
designated  were  forty-eight,  two  have  since  been  born) 
shall  be  sent  to  Liberia,  so  as  to  carry  out  the  arrangements 
made  with  that  society  for  their  liberation,  and  I  further 
wish  that  their  expenses  shall  be  paid  to  Baltimore,  Md., 
and  that  my  wife  shall  give  them  such  an  amount  of  money 
as  she  may  think  advisable."1 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Arthur  B.  Davies,  of  Amherst 
County,  admitted  to  probate  March  21st,  1853: 

"It  is  my  will  and  desire  that  all  my  slaves,  fifteen  in 
number  and  named  as  follows,—  (Here  follow  their 
names)  "together  with  their  future  increase,  shall  be 
liberated  and  become  invested  with  their  freedom  at  my 
death,  and  for  the  purpose  of  removing  them  to  some  free 
state  if  that  be  lawful,  or  to  Liberia  if  that  shall  become 
necessary,  it  is  my  will  and  desire  that  the  debt  now  due 
to  me  by  Charles  S.  Brown  be  collected  and  be  used  as  a 
fund  to  effect  that  object.  It  is  my  further  wish  that  in 
case  any  of  my  said  slaves  shall  of  their  own  free  will  and 
accord  prefer  remaining  in  slavery  rather  than  accepting 
freedom  under  the  provisions  of  this  clause,  then  it  is  my 
desire  that  they  shall  be  permitted  to  choose  masters 
amongst  any  of  my  legatees  hereinafter  mentioned,  and 
thereafter  to  become  their  slaves  for  life — the  parents  in 
such  case  to  choose  also  for  such  of  their  infant  children 
as  may  not  be  capable  of  making  their  own  election."2 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Philip  Lightfoot,  of  Culpeper 
County,  admitted  to  probate  May  21st,  1855: 

"  I  hereby  emancipate  and  set  free  all  the  slaves  I  may 
possess  or  be  entitled  to  at  the  time  of  my  decease,  who 

lWill  Book  No.  25,  p.  274,  Clerk's  Office,  Fauquier  County, 
Virginia. 

Will  Book  No.  13,  p.  51,  Clerk's  Office,  Amherst  County,  Virginia. 


122    SPECIMENS  OF  DEEDS  AND  WILLS,   1833-1860 

are  to  enjoy  their  freedom  as  fully  as  if  they  had  been 
born  free.  I  give  to  each  of  my  said  slaves,  without 
distinction  of  age  or  sex,  the  sum  of  one  hundred  dollars, 
to  be  paid  to  them  respectively  when  my  executor  shall 
deliver  to  them  their  discharge  from  service.  Moreover 
my  executor  is  required  to  clothe  each  of  them  well,  fur 
nishing  to  each  the  necessary  quantity  of  blankets  and 
cause  them  to  be  moved  to  some  place,  or  site,  where  they 
can  enjoy  their  freedom,  and  I  desire  the  clothing  and 
expenses  attending  their  removal  to  be  paid  out  of  my 
estate  with  the  money  on  hand  or  money  that  can  be  first 
collected. 

"  My  old  and  infirm  negroes  (if  any)  are  to  be  supported 
in  a  suitable  manner  by  my  estate/'1 

Extract  from  the  will  of  William  Smith,  of  Orange 
County,  admitted  to  probate  September  28th,  1857 : 

"  It  is  my  will  and  desire  that  my  house  servant,  Maria, 
my  man,  Paul,  and  my  woman,  Celia,  be  allowed  to  choose 
their  masters  or  mistresses  or  either,  and  when  they  have 
made  such  selection,  I  hereby  give  and  bequeath  them  to 
such  person  or  persons  as  they  may  respectively  select, 
provided  the  person  or  persons,  so  selected  by  them,  will 
take  them  as  their  property,  but  if  they  cannot  be  thus 
disposed  of,  then  my  executors  are  to  select  suitable 
places  for  them  where  they  will  be  well  clothed  and  taken 
care  of  upon  the  most  reasonable  and  best  terms  they  can, 
paying  out  of  my  estate  such  sums  of  money  as  may  be 
necessary  for  this  purpose/'2 

Extract  from  the  will  of  George  Washington  Parke 
Custis,  of  Fairfax  County,  admitted  to  probate  December 
7th,  1857: 

"And  upon  the  legacies  of  my  four  granddaughters 

Will  Book  F.,  p.  222,  Clerk's  Office,  Culpeper  County,  Virginia. 
*Will  Book   No.    12,   p.    267,    Clerk's   Office,    Orange   County, 
Virginia. 


SPECIMENS   OF   DEEDS   AND  WILLS,    1833-1860    123 

being  paid,  and  my  estates  that  are  required  to  pay  the  said 
legacies  being  free  of  debt,  I  give  freedom  to  my  slaves, 
the  said  slaves  to  be  emancipated  by  my  executors  in  such 
manner  as  to  my  executors  may  seem  most  expedient 
and  proper,  the  said  emancipation  to  be  accomplished  in 
not  exceeding  five  years  from  the  time  of  my  decease. 

"I  do  constitute  and  appoint  as  my  executors,  Lieut.- 
Col.  Robert  Edward  Lee,  Robert  Lee  Randolph,  of '  Eastern 
View',  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Meade  and  George  Washington 
Peter."' 

Extract  from  deed  of  Eliza  W.  Cocke,  of  Smithfield, 
dated  January  5th,  1857: 

"  Know  all  men  by  these  presents  that  I,  Eliza  W.  Cocke, 
of  the  Town  of  Smithfield,  in  the  County  of  Isle  of  Wight, 
in  the  State  of  Virginia,  from  motives  of  benevolence  have 
manumitted  and  set  free  from  slavery,  &c."2 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Louisa  Muschett,  of  Prince 
William  County,  dated  19th  March,  1856,  and  admitted 
to  probate  on  the  12th  February,  1858: 

"I  will  and  desire  all  my  servants  to  be  hired  out  for 
three  years,  and  at  the  end  of  that  time,  to  be  free,  each 
grown  servant  to  have  fifty  dollars,  and  each  child  to  have 
twenty-five  dollars.'73 

Extract  from  the  will  of  Robert  Tinsley,  of  Amherst 
County,  dated  March  12,  1859,  and  admitted  to  probate 
January  20,  1862: 

lWill  Book  No.  7,  p.  267,  Clerk's  Office,  Fairfax  County,  Virginia. 

Note:  Robert  E.  Lee  qualified  as  executor  under  this  will  and 
executed  in  1862  the  necessary  papers  emancipating  the  testator's 
slaves  of  whom  there  were  one  hundred  and  ninety-six. 

2Deed  Book  No.  39,  p.  344,  Clerk's  Office,  Isle  of  Wight  County, 
Virginia. 

3See  Will  Book  Q.,  p.  433,  Clerk's  Office,  Prince  William  County, 
Virginia. 


124    SPECIMENS   OF   DEEDS   AND   WILLS,    1833-1860 

"It  is  my  will  and  desire  that  the  residue  of  my  slaves 
and  future  increase  be  emancipated  and  removed  at  the 
expense  of  my  estate  to  one  of  the  free  states  of  this  Union. 
Although  there  are  some  legal  impediments,  I  suppose 
with  the  provisions  I  intend  for  them  they  can  be  settled 
in  Ohio,  or  some  other  of  the  Western  States.  I  wish 
them  settled  in  families  upon  tracts  of  land  to  be  pur 
chased  and  secured  to  them  to  the  amount  of  one  hundred 
dollars  a  head,  and  furnished  with  a  substantial  suit  of 
clothes  suitable  to  the  season  and  plain  provisions  sufficient 
for  a  year's  supply,  and  this  is  to  be  done  as  soon  as  suffi 
cient  funds  can  be  raised  from  collection  of  debts  in  aid 
of  any  money  I  may  leave  on  hand.  .  .  . 

"If  the  slaves  cannot  be  settled  in  Ohio,  or  some  other 
free  state  of  this  Union,  I  wish  them  properly  equipped 
and  sent  to  Liberia  at  the  expense  of  my  estate."1 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  present  extracts  from  all 
the  great  number  of  deeds  and  wills  which  are  to  be  found 
of  record  in  the  various  clerks'  offices  throughout  Virginia 
but  the  foregoing  have  been  selected  as  fairly  representa 
tive,  both  with  respect  to  the  time  of  their  execution,  the 
different  sections  of  the  state  in  which  they  are  to  be 
found,  and  the  social  position  of  the  emancipators.  They 
are  also  illustrative  of  the  great  number  of  emancipations 
and  of  the  difficulties  and  expenses  incurred  by  Virginia 
slaveholders  in  effectuating  that  result. 

1WM  Book  No.  16,  p.  106,  Clerk's  Office,  Amherst  County, 
Virginia. 


XVIII 

THE  SMALL  NUMBER  OF  SLAVEHOLDERS  IN  VIRGINIA  AS 
COMPARED  WITH  HER  WHOLE  WHITE  POPULATION 

AMONG  the  many  widespread  misconceptions  which 
existed  with  respect  to  slavery  in  Virginia,  was  the  im 
pression  that  the  great  majority  of  her  citizens  were  slave 
holders;  that  the  slaves  were  scattered  throughout  the 
state,  enriching  by  their  labors  every  community,  and  that 
thus  their  emancipation  was  opposed  from  purely  pecuniary 
motives.  A  presentation  of  the  actual  conditions  will  suf 
fice  to  demonstrate  that  this  impression  was  erroneous. 
The  facts  show  that  the  slaveholders  constituted  a  small 
minority  of  the  population,  and  that,  with  comparatively 
few  exceptions,  the  great  body  of  the  slaves  were  to  be 
found  within  certain  well  defined  sections  of  the  state. 

The  United  States  census  for  1860  fixes  the  white  popu 
lation  of  Virginia  at  1,047,299  and  the  number  of  slave 
holders  at  52,12s.1  Admiral  Chadwick,  in  his  work, 
Causes  of  the  Civil  War,  says:  "Of  the  52,128  slave 
holders  in  Virginia,  one-third  held  but  one  or  two  slaves; 
half  held  one  to  four;  there  were  but  one  hundred  and  four 
teen  persons  in  the  whole  state  who  owned  as  many  as  a 
hundred  each,  and  this  out  of  a  population  of  over  a  million 
whites."2 

Thus,  out  of  a  population  of  over  one  million,  only  some 

I8th  Census,  1860,  Vol.  on  Agriculture,  p.  245. 
^Causes  of  the  Civil  War,  American  Nation  Series,  Chadwick, 
p.  33. 

125 


126  AREA  AND  POPULATION  OF  STATE 

fifty  odd  thousand  men,  women  and  children,  were  slave 
holders,  one-third  of  whom  held  only  one  or  two  slaves. 
If  to  the  slaveholders  be  added  such  a  number  as  would 
fairly  represent  those  who  were  indirectly  interested  in 
a  pecuniary  way  in  slavery,  the  fact  remains,  that  the 
overwhelming  majority  possessed  no  such  incentive  to 
support  the  institution. 

By  this  same  census  the  area  of  Virginia  was  fixed  at 
64,770  square  miles,  divided  into  one  hundred  and  forty- 
eight  counties.  By  an  analysis  of  the  census  returns,  it 
will  appear  that  in  the  portion  of  the  state  lying  west  of 
the  Blue  Ridge  Mountains,  embracing  eighty  counties  and 
37,992  square  miles,  there  were  596,293  whites  and  only 
66,766  slaves;  while  in  the  remaining  sixty-eight  counties 
containing  26,778  square  miles,  there  were  only  451,006 
whites  and  424,099  slaves.  Even  with  respect  to  this  last 
mentioned  portion  of  the  state  the  slaves  were  not  evenly 
distributed  but  were  congested  in  certain  well  defined 
localities.  Thus  of  the  424,099  slaves  in  the  sixty-eight 
counties  lying  east  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  173,109  were  in 
twenty-two  counties  situated  between  James  River  and 
the  North  Carolina  border  known  as  the  "Black  Belt," 
the  white  population  of  which  was  only  128,303. 

The  foregoing  facts  have  an  important  bearing  upon  the 
statement  so  often  found  in  the  writings  of  historians  and 
publicists,  that  the  white  population  of  Virginia  and  the 
South  was  composed  in  large  measure  of  "slaveholders, 
arrogant  and  rich/'  and  "poor  whites,"  and  that  in  the 
Civil  War  the  former  fought  to  defend  their  property 
interests  in  slaves,  and  the  latter  from  a  deep-seated  fear 
that  emancipation  would  reduce  them  to  the  social  level 
of  the  blacks.  It  would  seem  impossible  for  such  con 
ditions  to  exist  in  counties  and  cities  where  the  whites 


"ARROGANT  SLAVEHOLDERS"       127 

largely  outnumbered  the  blacks.  "  Arrogant  slaveholders," 
counting  their  slaves  by  the  scores  and  dominating  the 
social  and  economic  fortunes  of  their  white  neighbors, 
could  be  found  only  in  sections  where  the  slaves  greatly 
outnumbered  the  whites.  While  agriculture  was  undoubt 
edly  the  pursuit  in  which  a  great  majority  of  the  people 
of  Virginia  was  engaged,  yet  this  majority  was  not  made 
up  of  "arrogant  slaveholders"  and  "poor  whites."  The 
United  States  census  showed  that  the  great  body  of  her 
white  people  were  small  farmers,  wage-earners,  mechanics, 
merchants  and  professional  men,  with  some  not  incon 
siderable  number  of  miners,  fishermen  and  employees  in 
manufactories.  The  prosperous,  among  this  more  num 
erous  element  of  her  population,  had  little  or  no  pecuniary 
interests  in  slave  property,  while  the  poorer  classes  enter 
tained  as  little  fear  for  the  preservation  of  their  social  status 
from  the  abolition  of  slavery,  as  they  had  pecuniary  stake 
in  its  maintenance. 


XIX 

THE  INJURIOUS  EFFECTS  OF  SLAVERY  UPON  THE 
PROSPERITY  OF  VIRGINIA 

FROM  the  foregoing  statistics  it  appears  that  the  slave 
holders  of  Virginia  constituted  a  small  minority  of  her 
population,  and  that  the  slaves  themselves  were  so  grouped 
that  the  pecuniary  advantage  of  their  presence  to  the  state 
— if  any  such  advantage  existed — was  limited  to  certain 
well  defined  portions  of  her  territory.  That  the  institution 
of  slavery,  however,  was  a  positive  disadvantage  to  the 
material  prosperity  of  Virginia  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
free  states,  not  half  so  richly  endowed  with  natural 
resources,  had  far  outstripped  her  in  wealth  and  population, 
and  also  that  as  between  the  white  and  the  slave  sections  of 
the  commonwealth,  the  former  were  more  prosperous. 

Mr.  Bancroft,  writing  in  1856,  affirmed  the  truth  of  this 
position. 

"Washington,"  he  says,  "was  the  director  of  his  com 
munity  of  black  people  in  their  labor,  mainly  for  their  own 
subsistence.  For  the  market,  they  produced  scarcely  any 
thing  but  a  'little  wheat7;  and  after  a  season  of  drought 
even  their  own  support  had  to  be  eked  out  from  other  re 
sources,  so  that  with  all  his  method  and  good  judgment  he, 
like  Madison  of  a  later  day,  and  in  accord  with  common 
experience  in  Virginia,  found  that  where  negroes  continued 
on  the  same  land,  and  they  and  all  their  increase  were 
maintained  upon  it,  their  owner  would  become  more  and 
more  embarrassed  or  impoverished."1 

History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  VI,  p.  179. 
128 


THE  BLIGHT  OF  SLAVERY  UPON  VIRGINIA     129 

Again  the  same  author,  contrasting  the  profitable  char 
acter  of  slavery  in  the  Cotton  States,  with  its  unprofitable 
ness  in  Maryland  and  Virginia,  says:  "In  the  Northern 
most  of  the  Southern  States  slavery  maintained  itself,  not 
as  an  element  of  prosperity,  but  as  a  baneful  inheritance."1 

In  no  way  were  the  injurious  effects  of  slavery  more 
potent  or  more  manifest  than  in  retarding  the  growth  of  the 
white  population  of  the  state.  The  presence  of  the  institu 
tion  not  only  turned  the  tide  of  immigration  from  Virginia, 
but,  during  the  three  decades  preceding  the  Civil  War,  it 
promoted  a  steady  exodus  of  the  whites  from  the  slave- 
holding  sections.  Admiral  Chadwick  records  that,  "  Nearly 
400,000  Virginians  were,  in  1860,  living  in  other  states — 
nearly  all  of  them  Western,  75,874  in  Ohio  alone/72 

Not  only  are  the  foregoing  recitals  true  but  it  is  equally 
true  that  their  direful  import  was  profoundly  appreciated. 
Not  all  the  people  of  Virginia  lived  in  a  Fool's  Paradise. 
They  balanced  the  known  burdens  of  slavery  against  the 
anticipated  burdens  of  emancipation — they  compared  the 
dangers  and  losses  of  present  conditions  with  the  problems 
of  a  future  in  which  the  slaves  would  be  free,  yet  still  in 
their  midst ;  but  by  no  calculation  could  the  continuance  of 
slavery  be  upheld  because  of  the  pecuniary  benefits  derived 
from  its  existence.  The  published  sentiments  of  Virginians 
during  the  three  decades  immediately  preceding  the  Civil 
War  will  serve  to  confirm  this  position. 

Among  the  petitions  presented  to  the  Virginia  Con 
vention  of  1829-30,  was  one  from  the  citizens  of  Staunton, 
praying  the  abolition  of  slavery. 

"We  waive,"  the  petition  recited,  "at  present  the  con- 

lldem,  p.  262. 

^Causes  of  Civil  War,  Chadwick,  p.  35. 


130  INJURIOUS  EFFECTS   OF  SLAVERY 

siderations  of  religion  and  humanity,  which  belong  to  this 
momentous  subject,  and  present  it  as  a  naked  question 
of  policy,  wisdom  and  safety.  .  .  .  We  affirm  that  the 
possession  and  management  of  slaves  form  a  source  of  end 
less  vexation  and  misery  within  the  house,  and  a  waste  and 
drain  on  the  farm;  .  .  .  that  the  waste  of  the  products 
of  the  land,  nay,  of  the  land  itself  is  bringing  poverty  upon 
all  its  inhabitants;  that  this  poverty  and  the  supineness  of 
our  population  either  prevent  the  institution  of  schools 
through  the  country  or  keep  them  in  the  most  languid  and 
inefficient  condition;  and  that  the  same  causes  must 
obviously  paralyze  all  our  schemes  and  efforts  for  the  need 
ful  improvement  of  the  country.  .  .  . 

"  It  is  conceded  on  all  hands  that  Virginia  is  in  a  state 
of  moral  and  political  retrogression  among  the  states  of  the 
Confederacy.  .  .  .  We  humbly  suggest  our  belief,  that  the 
slavery  which  exists,  and  which,  with  gigantic  strides,  is 
gaining  ground  amongst  us,  is,  in  truth,  the  great  efficient 
cause  of  the  multiple  evils  which  we  all  deplore.  We  can 
not  conceive  that  there  is  any  other  cause  sufficiently 
operative  to  paralyze  the  energies  of  a  people  so  mag 
nanimous,  to  neutralize  the  blessings  of  Providence,  in 
cluded  in  the  gift  of  a  land  so  happy  in  its  soil,  its  climate, 
its  minerals  and  its  waters  and  to  annul  the  manifold  advan 
tages  of  our  Republican  freedom  and  geographical  position. 
If  Virginia  has  already  fallen  from  the  high  estate,  and  if 
we  have  assigned  the  true  cause  of  her  fall,  it  is  with  utmost 
anxiety  that  we  look  forward  to  the  future,  to  the  fatal 
termination  of  the  scene."1 

To  show  that  the  views  here  expressed  by  the  citizens 
of  Staunton  were  not  peculiar  to  the  people  of  that  locality 
we  insert  extracts  from  speeches  made  two  years  later 
by  representatives  in  the  Virginia  Legislature,  from  coun 
ties  as  widely  separated  as  Fauquier  and  Rockbridge, 
Berkeley  and  Buckingham. 

Wiles'  Register,  Vol.  XXXVI,  No.  932,  p.  356. 


VIEWS   OF  FAULKNER  AND  BOLLING          131 

Thomas  Marshall,  of  Fauquier  County,  speaking  in  1832, 
in  the  Virginia  House  of  Delegates,  said: 

"Our  towns  are  stationary,  our  villages  almost  every 
where  declining  and  the  general  aspect  of  the  country 
marks  the  course  of  a  wasteful,  idle,  reckless  population, 
who  have  no  interest  in  the  soil,  and  care  not  how  much 
it  is  impoverished.  Public  improvements  are  neglected, 
and  the  entire  continent  does  not  present  a  region  for 
which  Nature  has  done  so  much  and  art  so  little.  If 
cultivated  by  free  labor,  the  soil  of  Virginia  is  capable  of 
sustaining  a  dense  population  among  whom  labor  would  be 
honourable,  and  where  the  busy  hum  of  men  would  tell 
that  all  were  happy  and  that  all  were  free/71 

In  the  same  debate,  Charles  J.  Faulkner,  of  Berkeley 
County,  said: 

"Sir,  if  there  be  one  who  concurs  with  that  gentleman, 
(Mr.  Gholson,  of  Brunswick)  in  the  harmless  character  of 
that  institution,  let  me  request  him  to  compare  conditions 
of  the  slaveholding  portion  of  this  commonwealth,  barren, 
desolate  and  seared,  as  it  were,  by  the  avenging  hand  of 
Heaven,  with  the  descriptions  which  we  have  of  this  same 
country  from  those  who  first  broke  its  virgin  soil.  To 
what  is  this  change  ascribable?  Alone  to  the  withering, 
blasting  effects  of  slavery."2 

Philip  A.  Boiling,  of  Buckingham  County,  said: 

"  If  we  turn  our  eyes  to  that  part  of  the  country  which 
lies  below  the  mountains,  and  particularly  below  the  falls 
of  the  rivers,  it  seems  as  if  some  judgment  from  Heaven 
had  passed  over  it  and  seared  it;  fields  once  cultivated 
are  now  waste  and  desolate;  the  eye  is  no  longer  cheered 

^Virginia  Slavery  Debate,  1832,  White,  Speech  of  Thomas 
Marshall,  p.  6. 

2Idem,  Speech  of  Charles  J.  Faulkner,  p.  20. 


132       VIEWS  OF  MCDOWELL  AND  HARRISON 

by  the  rich  verdure  that  decked  it  in  other  days;  no,  sir, 
but  fatigued  by  an  interminable  wilderness  of  worn  out, 
gullied,  piney  old  fields/'1 

James  McDowell,  in  the  same  debate,  said: 

"Sir,  it  is  true  of  Virginia,  not  merely  that  she  has  not 
advanced,  but  that  in  many  respects  she  has  greatly 
declined;  and  what  have  we  got  as  a  compensation  for  this 
decline?  As  a  compensation  for  this  disparity  between 
what  Virginia  is  and  what  she  might  have  been?  Nothing 
but  the  right  of  property  in  the  very  beings  who  have 
brought  this  disparity  upon  us.  This  is  our  pay;  this  is 
what  we  have  gotten  to  remunerate  us  for  our  delinquent 
prosperity;  to  repay  us  for  our  desolated  fields;  our  torpid 
enterprise;  and  in  this  dark  day  of  our  humbled  import 
ance,  to  sustain  our  hopes  and  to  soothe  our  pride  as  a 
people/'2 

Jesse  Burton  Harrison,  in  an  article  published  in  the 
American  Quarterly  Review,  December,  1832,  sets  out  at 
length  the  poverty  of  Virginia,  and  the  disastrous  effects 
of  slavery  upon  her  industrial  development. 

"What,"  says  Mr.  Harrison,  "is  now  the  productive 
value  of  an  estate  of  lands  and  negroes  in  Virginia?  We 
state  as  a  result  of  extensive  inquiries,  embracing  the  last 
fifteen  years,  that  a  very  great  portion  of  the  larger  plan 
tations,  with  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  slaves,  actually 
bring  their  proprietors  in  debt  at  the  end  of  the  short 
term  of  years,  notwithstanding  what  would  once,  in  Virginia, 
have  been  deemed  very  sheer  economy;  that  much  the  larger 
part  of  the  considerable  land-owners  are  content  if  they 
barely  meet  their  plantation  expenses  without  a  loss  of 
capital,  and  that  those  who  make  any  profit,  it  will,  in 

^Virginia  Slavery  Debate,  1832,  White,  Speech  of  Philip  A.  Boi 
ling,  p.  14. 

*Idem,  Speech  of  James  McDowell,  p.  18. 


VIEWS  OF  HENRY  RUFFNER  133 

none  but  rare  instances,  average  more  than  one  to  one 
and  a  half  per  cent,  on  the  capital  invested.  The  case 
is  not  materially  varied  with  the  smaller  proprietors. 
Mr.  Randolph  of  Roanoke,  whose  sayings  have  so  generally 
the  raciness  and  truth  of  proverbs,  has  repeatedly  said  in 
Congress  that  the  time  was  coming  when  the  masters 
would  run  away  from  their  slaves,  and  be  advertised  by 
them  in  the  public  papers.  ...  Of  the  white  emigrants 
from  Virginia,  at  least  half  are  hard  working  who  carry 
away  with  them  little  beside  their  tools  and  a  stout  heart 
of  hope.  The  mechanics'  trades  have  failed  to  give  them 
bread.  Commerce,  she  has  little,  shipping  none,  and  it 
is  a  fact  that  the  very  staple  of  the  state,  tobacco,  is  not 
exported  by  her  own  capital.  The  state  does  virtually 
a  commission  business  in  it.  All  the  sources  of  pros 
perity,  moral  and  economical,  are  deadened;  there  is 
general  discontent  with  one's  lot;  in  some  of  the  first 
settled  and  choicest  part  of  her  territory  symptoms  are 
not  wanting  of  desolate  antiquity.  And  all  this  in  youth 
ful  America,  and  in  Virginia  too,  the  fairest  region  of 
America  and  with  a  race  of  people  inferior  to  none  in  the 
world  in  its  capacity  to  constitute  a  prosperous  nation." 

In  the  address  of  Dr.  Henry  Ruffner,  President  of 
Washington  College,  delivered  in  1847,  heretofore  quoted 
from,  the  author  by  a  mass  of  statistics  shows  how  slavery 
had  injured  the  state  by  decimating  its  white  population, 
paralyzing  its  agriculture  and  almost  destroying  its  manu 
facturing  and  commercial  interests. 

"We  esteem  it,"  says  Dr.  Ruffner,  "a  sad,  a  humiliating 
fact  which  should  permeate  the  heart  of  every  Virginian, 
that  from  the  year  1790  to  this  time,  Virginia  has  lost 
more  people  by  emigration  than  all  the  old  free  states 
together.  Up  to  1840,  when  the  last  census  was  taken, 
she  had  lost  more  by  near  three  hundred  thousand.  .  .  .  She 
has  sent,  or  we  should  rather  say,  she  has  driven  from  her 
soil,  at  least  one-third  of  all  the  emigrants  who  have  gone 


134  VIEWS  OF  HENRY  RUFFNER 

from  the  old  states  to  the  new.  ...  It  is  in  the  last  period 
of  ten  years  from  1830  to  1840,  that  this  consuming  plague 
of  slavery  has  shown  its  worst  effects  in  the  old  Southern 
States.  .  .  .  East  Virginia  actually  fell  off  twenty-six  thou 
sand  in  population;  and  with  the  exception  of  Richmond 
and  one  or  two  other  towns,  her  population  continues  to 
decline.  Old  Virginia  was  the  first  to  sow  this  land  of 
ours  with  slavery;  she  was  also  the  first  to  reap  the  full 
harvest  of  destruction." 


The  author  then  proceeds  to  show  from  the  report  of 
Professor  George  Tucker,  of  the  University  of  Virginia, 
that  in  New  England  agriculture  yields  an  annual  value 
averaging  one  hundred  and  eighty  dollars  per  hand;  and 
the  Southern  States  a  hundred  and  thirty  dollars  per  hand; 
and  proceeds:  "Now  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that 
slave  labor  is  better  adapted  to  agriculture  than  to  any 
other  branch  of  industry;  and  that,  if  not  good  for  agricul 
ture,  it  is  really  good  for  nothing." 

Referring  to  the  subject  of  manufactures,  and  the  blight 
ing  influence  of  slavery  thereon,  the  author  says:  "Of 
all  the  states  in  this  Union,  not  one  has  on  the  whole  such 
various  and  abundant  resources  for  manufacturing  as 
our  own  Virginia  both  East  and  West." 

Notwithstanding  these  advantages,  the  author  demon 
strates  from  the  census  that  the  state  has  scarcely  entered 
upon  the  work  of  manufacturing  her  raw  material.  Thus 
in  four  leading  manufactures,  the  output  in  New  York 
was  twenty-one  millions,  New  Jersey,  six  millions,  and 
Pennsylvania,  sixteen  millions  in  value;  while  that  of 
Virginia  was  two  and  three-fourths  millions.  With 
respect  to  the  commerce  of  the  state,  the  author,  after 
pointing  out  her  exceptional  advantages  growing  out  of 
her  fine  harbors  and  numerous  rivers,  declares: 


VIEWS  OF  R.   R.  HOWISON  135 

"That  the  commerce  of  our  old  slave-eaten  common 
wealth  has  decayed  and  dwindled  away  to  a  mere  pittance 
in  the  general  mass  of  American  trade. 

"  The  value  of  her  exports,  which,  twenty-five  or  thirty 
years  ago,  averaged  four  or  five  millions  a  year  shrunk  by 
1842  to  two  millions  eight  hundred  and  twenty  thousand 
dollars,  and  by  1845  to  two  million  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars." 

"Her  imports  from  foreign  countries  were,  in  the  year 
1765,  valued  at  upwards  of  four  millions  of  dollars;  in 
1791  they  had  sunk  to  two  and  one-half  millions;  in  1821 
they  had  fallen  to  a  little  over  one  million;  in  1827  they 
had  come  down  to  about  half  this  sum;  and  in  1843  to  the 
half  of  this  again,  or  about  one-quarter  of  a  million;  and 
here  they  have  stood  ever  since — at  next  to  nothing."  .  .  . 

"Why  should  every  commercial  improvement,  every 
wheel  that  speeds  the  movement  of  trade,  serve  but  to 
carry  away  from  the  slave  states  more  and  more  of  their 
wealth  for  the  benefit  of  the  great  Northern  cities? 
The  only  cause  that  can  be  assigned  is  that  where 
slavery  prevails,  commerce  and  navigation  cannot  flourish, 
and  commercial  towns  cannot  compete  with  those  in  the 
free  states/'1 

R.  R.  Howison,  in  his  History  of  Virginia,  published  in 
1848,  replying  to  the  question  whether  the  state  has 
prospered:  "As  her  physical  resources  would  warrant  us 
in  expecting:  has  she  held  her  place  in  the  great  march 
of  American  States  during  the  present  century?"  answers: 

"It  has  long  been  the  sad  conviction  of  her  most  en 
lightened  children  that  these  questions  must  be  answered 
in  the  negative.  ...  It  must,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  a 
truth,  but  too  fully  established,  that  Virginia  has  fallen 
below  her  duty;  that  she  has  been  indolent  while  others 
have  been  laborious;  that  she  has  been  content  to  avoid 
a  movement  positively  retrograde  while  others  have  gone 

lThe  Ruffner  Pamphlet. 


136  VIRGINIA'S  INDUSTRIAL  STATUS,   1852 

rapidly  forward.  Her  motion  compared  with  that  of 
Massachusetts  and  Ohio  might,  in  familiar  terms,  be  likened 
to  the  heavy  stage  coach  of  the  past  century,  competing 
with  the  fine  steam  car  of  the  present. 

"  For  this  sluggishness  and  imbecility  many  causes  might 
be  assigned,  .  .  .  but  there  are  three  sources  in  which,  as 
we  believe,  the  evil  dispositions  of  our  state  so  naturally 
flow  that  they  ought  to  receive  special  notice. " 

These  were,  want  of  popular  educational  facilities,  lack 
of  internal  improvements,  and  the  existence  of  slavery.1 
The  author  says: 

"  The  last  and  most  important  cause  unfavorably  affect 
ing  Virginia  which  we  shall  mention  is  the  existence  of 
slavery  within  her  bounds.  We  have  already  seen  the 
origin  and  progress  of  this  institution.  As  to  its  evils, 
we  have  nothing  new  to  offer;  they  have  long  been  felt 
and  acknowledged  by  the  most  sagacious  minds  in  our 
state."2 

Bishop  Meade,  in  a  note  to  his  history,  Old  Churches, 
Ministers  and  Families  in  Virginia,  published  in  1857, 
referring  to  the  injurious  effects  of  slavery  upon  Virginia's 
agricultural  development,  says:  "That  the  agriculture  of 
Virginia  has  suffered  in  times  past  from  the  use  of  slaves, 
we  think  most  evident  from  the  deserted  fields,  impover 
ished  estates  and  emigrating  population."3 

In  1852,  the  Virginia  Agricultural  Society  was  organized, 
having  among  its  membership  and  founders,  the  foremost 
planters  and  citizens  of  the  state.  From  an  address 
issued  at  the  time,  we  make  the  following  compilations 
and  extracts: 

^History  of  Virginia,  Howison,  Vol.  II,  pp.  510-511. 
^History  of  Virginia,  Howison,  Vol.  II,  p.  517. 
30ld  Churches,  Ministers   and  Families  of  Virginia,  Meade,  Vol. 
I,  p.  90. 


VIRGINIA'S  INDUSTRIAL  STATUS,   1856  137 

After  reciting  that  Virginia  was  a  community  of  farmers 
— eight-tenths  of  her  industry  being  expended  upon  the 
soil;  the  address  proceeds  to  point  out  that  out  of  thirty- 
nine  millions  of  acres  she  tills  only  a  little  over  ten  millions; 
that  New  York,  on  the  other  hand,  with  twenty-nine  and 
a  half  millions,  has  subdued  to  the  plough  twelve  and  a 
quarter;  while  Massachusetts  has  reclaimed  from  the 
forests,  quarry  and  marsh,  two  and  one-tenth  out  of  her 
little  territory  of  five  millions  of  acres;  that  the  live  stock 
of  Virginia  was  worth  only  $3.31  for  every  arable  acre;  the 
live  stock  of  New  York,  $6.07;  and  the  live  stock  of  Massa 
chusetts,  $4.52;  that  the  proportion  of  hay  for  the  same 
quantity  of  land  was  eighty-one  pounds  for  Virginia,  six 
hundred  and  seventy-nine  pounds  for  New  York,  and  six 
hundred  and  eighty-four  pounds  for  Massachusetts;  that 
whilst  the  population  of  Virginia  had  increased  during  the 
previous  ten  years  in  a  ratio  of  eleven  to  sixty-six,  New 
York  had  increased  twenty-seven  to  fifty-two,  and  Massa 
chusetts  thirty-four  to  eighty-one.  The  address  then  pro 
ceeds: 

"In  the  above  figures,  carefully  selected  from  the  data 
of  authentic  documents,  we  find  no  cause  for  self-gratula- 
tion,  but  some  food  for  meditation.  They  are  not  without 
use  to  those  who  would  improve  the  future  by  the  past. 
They  show  that  we  have  not  done  our  part  in  the  bringing 
of  land  into  cultivation;  that  notwithstanding  natural 
advantages  which  greatly  exceed  those  of  the  two  states 
drawn  into  parallel  with  Virginia,  we  are  yet  behind  them 
both.  .  .  . 

"When  we  contemplate  our  field  of  labor  and  the  work 
we  have  done  in  it,  we  cannot  but  observe  the  sad  contrast 
between  capacity  and  achievement.  With  a  widespread 
domain,  with  a  kindly  soil,  with  a  climate  whose  sun 
radiates  fertility  and  whose  very  dews  distill  abundance, 


138  VIRGINIA'S   INDUSTRIAL  STATUS,   1856 

we  find  our  inheritance  so  wasted  that  the  eye  aches  to 
behold  the  prospect."1 

Henry  A.  Wise,  in  the  canvass  of  1856,  preliminary  to  his 
election  to  the  office  of  Governor,  depicted  the  financial 
and  industrial  conditions  then  existing  in  Virginia. 

"Commerce/'  said  he,  "has  long  ago  spread  her  sails 
and  sailed  away  from  you.  You  have  not,  as  yet,  dug 
more  than  coal  enough  to  warm  yourselves  at  your  own 
hearths;  you  have  not  yet  spun  more  than  coarse  cotton 
enough  in  the  way  of  manufacture  to  clothe  your  own 
slaves.  You  have  no  commerce,  no  mining,  no  manu 
factures.  You  have  relied  alone  upon  the  single  power 
of  agriculture — and  such  agriculture!  Your  sedge  patches 
outshine  the  sun.  Your  inattention  to  your  only  source 
of  wealth  has  scarred  the  very  bosom  of  mother  earth/'2 

It  will  be  observed  that  neither  the  authors  of  the 
address  issued  by  the  Agricultural  Society  of  Virginia,  nor 
Governor  Wise,  attribute  the  poverty  and  backwardness 
of  Virginia  to  the  institution  of  slavery.  Their  statements, 
however,  are  none  the  less  valuable  as  showing  the  status — 
financial  and  industrial — to  which  Virginia  had  been 
reduced. 

1A  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  Olmstead,  Vol.  I, 
pp.  187-189. 

*The  Impending  Crisis  in  the  South,  Helper,  p.  90. 


XX 

THE  CUSTOM  OF  BUYING  AND  SELLING  SLAVES — 
VIRGINIA'S  ATTITUDE 

BUT  it  is  charged  that  while  slavery  was  unprofitable  in 
Virginia,  as  a  system  of  labor,  yet  the  state  had  become  a 
"breeding  ground"  where  slaves  were  reared  and  sold  for 
profit  and  that  the  advantages  accruing  from  this  traffic  had 
destroyed  all  sentiment  in  favor  of  emancipation,  and  so 
lowered  the  moral  standards  of  the  people  that,  in  1861, 
they  stood  ready  to  fight  for  the  maintenance  of  slavery 
and  the  inter-state  slave  trade. 

Mr.  Fiske  says : 

"  The  life  of  the  anti-slavery  party  in  Virginia  was  short. 
After  the  abolition  of  the  African  slave  trade  in  1808  had 
increased  the  demand  for  Virginia-bred  slaves  in  the  states 
farther  south,  the  very  idea  of  emancipation  faded  out  of 
memory/'1 

The  biographers  of  Lincoln,  Nicolay  and  Hay,  say: 

"The  condition  of  Virginia  had  become  anomalous;  it 
was  little  understood  by  the  North  and  still  less  by  her  own 
citizens.  .  .  .  She  still  deemed  she  was  the  mother  of 
Presidents:  whereas  she  had  degenerated  into  being  like 
other  Border  States,  the  mother  of  slave  breeders  and  of  an 
annual  crop  of  black-skinned  chattels  to  be  sold  to  the 
cotton,  rice,  and  sugar  planters  of  her  neighboring  common 
wealths.  .  .  .  However  counterfeit  logic  or  mental  reser 
vations  concealed  it,  the  underlying  feeling  was  to  fight,  no 

I0ld  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,  Fiske,  Vol.  II,  p.  191. 
139 


140  CHARACTER  OF  VIRGINIANS,    1860 

matter  whom,  and  little  matter  how,  for  the  protection  of 
slavery  and  slave  property/'1 

Let  us  apply  to  these  charges  what  in  lieu  of  a  better 
term  we  will  call  the  law  of  probabilities.  Is  it  probable 
that  the  anti-slavery  sentiments  alluded  to  as  being  so 
strong  in  Virginia  immediately  succeeding  the  Revolution 
would  have  perished  as  early  as  1808,  simply  because 
slaves  had  appreciated  in  value?  While  Washington  and 
Henry  and  Mason  died  prior  to  1808,  yet  their  great  com 
patriots  Jefferson,  Marshall,  Madison  and  Monroe  lived  to 
dates  long  subsequent,  filling  the  highest  positions  in  the 
gift  of  the  state  and  nation. 

Will  it  be  seriously  urged  that  these  men  and  others,  of 
only  less  prominence,  lost  their  influence  with  their  country 
men  because  of  the  debasing  influences  of  the  domestic 
slave  trade? 

Again,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  between  the  date 
indicated,  and  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  the  Virginians 
had  so  further  degenerated  as  to  stand  ready  to  fight  for 
slavery  and  property  in  slaves.  While  Virginia,  in  the 
period  of  the  Civil  War,  presented  no  statesmen  comparable 
to  those  of  the  Revolution,  yet  in  all  the  elements  of  inspir 
ing  manhood,  valor,  sacrifice  and  devotion,  her  people  were 
not  one  whit  behind  their  ancestors.  The  debasing  effects 
of  "slave  breeding "  had  not  corrupted  the  great  body  of 
her  people:  if  so,  how  can  we  account  for  the  bearing  of 
Virginians  at  Gettysburg,  and  on  other  fields  of  test  only 
less  heroic?  Speaking  of  their  part  in  that  historic  battle, 
Charles  Francis  Adams  says: 

"If  in  all  recorded  warfare  there  is  a  deed  of  arms,  the 
lAbraham  Lincoln,  A  History,  N.  &  H.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  415. 


CHARACTER  OF  LEE  AND  HIS  SOLDIERS        141 

name  and  memory  of  which  the  descendants  of  those  who 
participated  therein  should  not  wish  to  see  obliterated  from 
any  record,  be  it  historian's  page  or  battle  flag,  it  was  the 
advance  of  Pickett's  Virginian  Division  across  the  wide 
valley  of  death  in  front  of  Cemetery  Ridge.  I  know  in  all 
recorded  warfare  of  no  finer,  no  more  sustained  and  deadly 
feat  of  arms."1 

What  of  the  Cadets  at  the  Battle  of  New  Market?  Were 
those  young  heroes  the  sons  of  "slave  breeders "  and 
nurtured  in  homes  darkened  by  such  a  debasing  practice? 
What  of  the  spirit  and  bearing  of  the  great  body  of  Vir 
ginia  soldiers  who  followed  Lee,  and  what  place  shall  they 
and  their  commander  take  in  the  estimation  of  the  world's 
best  thought  and  conscience?  President  Roosevelt  says: 

"The  world  has  never  seen  better  soldiers  than  those 
who  followed  Lee,  and  their  leader  will  undoubtedly  rank 
as,  without  any  exception,  the  very  greatest  of  all  the 
great  captains  that  the  English-speaking  peoples  have 
brought  forth."2 

What  of  Lee's  character  as  a  man,  aside  from  his  genius 
as  a  soldier?  Lord  Wolseley  says: 

"  I  have  met  many  of  the  great  men  of  my  time,  but  Lee 
alone  impressed  me  with  the  feeling  that  I  was  in  the  pres 
ence  of  a  man  who  was  cast  in  a  grander  mould,  and  made 
of  different  and  of  finer  metal  than  all  other  men.  He  is 
stamped  upon  my  memory  as  a  being  apart  and  superior  to 
all  others  in  every  way;  a  man  with  whom  none  I  ever 
knew,  and  very  few  of  whom  I  have  read,  are  worthy  to  be 
classed.  I  have  met  but  two  men  who  realized  my  ideas 
of  what  a  true  hero  should  be;  my  friend,  Charles  Gordon 
was  one,  General  Lee  was  the  other."3 

lLee  at  Appomattox  and  Other  Papers,  Adams,  p.  425. 
^Thomas  H.  Benton,  Roosevelt,  p.  34. 
^Robert  E.  Lee,  Wolseley,  p.  12. 


142  RHODES'   ESTIMATE  OF   LEE 

James  Ford  Rhodes  says: 

"A  careful  survey  of  his  (Lee's)  character  and  life  must 
lead  the  student  of  men  and  affairs  to  see  that  the  course 
he  took  was,  from  his  point  of  view,  and  judged  by  his 
inexorable  and  pure  conscience,  the  path  of  duty  to  which 
a  high  sense  of  honor  called  him.  Could  we  share  the 
thoughts  of  that  high-minded  man  as  he  paced  the  broad 
pillared  veranda  of  his  noble  Arlington  house,  his  eyes 
glancing  across  the  river  at  the  flag  of  his  country  waving 
above  the  dome  of  the  capitol,  and  then  resting  on  the  soil 
of  his  native  Virginia,  we  should  be  willing  now  to  recog 
nize  in  him  one  of  the  finest  products  of  American  Life."1 

If  such  were  the  character  of  the  Virginians  of  the  Civil 
War  period,  is  it  reasonable  to  speak  of  their  "degen 
eracy"  under  the  debasing  influence  of  "slave  breeding" 
and  "  the  slave  trade?"  "  Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns 
or  figs  of  thistles?" 

Again,  how  was  it  possible  that  this  system  of  breeding 
slaves  for  market  could  have  so  established  itself  in  Vir 
ginia,  and  inspired  the  great  body  of  her  citizenship  with  a 
willingness  to  fight  for  its  maintenance,  in  view  of  the 
existence  of  a  public  opinion  which  pursued  with  relentless 
ostracism  the  men  who  engaged  in  the  traffic?  For  no 
offense  was  the  public  opinion  of  Virginia  so  merciless  as 
for  that  of  buying  and  selling  slaves.  More  than  for  any 
other  crime,  the  disgrace  of  its  guilt  passed  beyond  the 
offender  to  his  innocent  offspring.  The  existence  of  this 
public  sentiment  is  an  historic  fact  of  unquestioned 
verity. 

Writing  in  1854,  Reverend  Nehemiah  Adams,  of  Boston, 
who  visited  Virginia  in  that  year,  says:  "Negro  traders  are 

lHistory  of  the  United  States,  Rhodes,  1904,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  413. 


HOSTILITY  TO  NEGRO-TRADERS  143 

the  abhorrence  of  all  flesh.  Even  their  descendants  when 
they  are  known,  and  the  property  acquired  in  the  traffic, 
have  a  blot  upon  them."1 

Abraham  Lincoln,  speaking  on  the  16th  of  October,  1854, 
at  Peoria,  Illinois,  says: 

"Again,  you  have  among  you  a  sneaking  individual  of 
the  class  of  native  tyrants  known  as  the  slave-dealer.  He 
watches  your  necessities  and  crawls  up  to  buy  your  slaves 
at  a  speculative  price.  If  you  cannot  help  it,  you  sell  to 
him,  but  if  you  can  help  it,  you  drive  him  from  your  door. 
You  despise  him  utterly;  you  do  not  recognize  him  as  a 
friend,  or  even  as  an  honest  man.  Your  children  must  not 
play  with  his;  they  may  rollick  freely  with  the  little  negroes, 
but  not  with  the  slave-dealer's  children.  ...  If  he  grows 
rich  and  retires  from  business,  you  still  remember  him,  and 
still  keep  up  the  ban  of  non-intercourse  upon  him  and  his 
family/72 

It  would  seem  impossible  to  reconcile  the  existence  of 
this  public  sentiment  with  the  idea  that  the  state  had 
degenerated  into  "the  mother  of  slave  breeders,"  and  that 
her  people,  enamored  of  the  profits,  were  given  over  to  the 
work  of  rearing  and  selling  slaves. 

Against  the  charge,  however,  that  the  abolition  of  the 
foreign  slave  trade  in  1808  and  the  contemporaneous 
invention  of  the  cotton  gin  so  enhanced  the  market  value 
of  slaves  as  to  destroy  the  sentiment  previously  existing 
in  Virginia  for  their  emancipation,  we  place  the  well- 
attested  fact  that  anti-slavery  sentiment  did  not  die  at  the 
time  and  for  the  causes  specified.  The  truth  is  just  to  the 
contrary.  Anti-slavery  sentiments  among  the  people  grew 

lSouth  Side  View  of  Slavery,  Adams,  p.  78. 

^Abraham  lAncoln,  Letters,  Speeches  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  I,  p.  194. 


144  ANTI-SLAVERY   SENTIMENT,    1832 

steadily  during  the  next  quarter  of  a  century.  The  setback 
which  occurred  in  1832-33  arose,  as  we  have  seen,  from  other 
causes.  The  existence  of  the  strongest  anti-slavery  senti 
ment  at  the  latter  date  cannot  be  questioned.  Said  Charles 
James  Faulkner  in  the  great  debate  in  the  Virginia  Legis 
lature  of  1832:  "Sir,  I  am  gratified  to  perceive  that  no 
gentleman  has  yet  arisen  in  this  hall,  the  avowed  advocate 
of  slavery.  The  day  has  gone  by  when  such  a  voice  could 
be  listened  to  with  patience  or  even  forbearance.7' 

George  Ticknor  Curtis,  of  Boston,  writing  a  half  century 
later,  says:  "It  may  be  asserted  as  positively  as  anything 
in  history  that  in  the  year  1832  there  was  nowhere  in  the 
world  a  more  enlightened  sense  of  the  wrong  and  evil  of 
slavery  than  there  was  among  the  public  men  and  people 
of  Virginia."2 

Was  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  1833  a  reminiscence 
or  a  growth?  Had  it  simply  survived  with  diminishing 
strength  the  fervor  of  the  Revolution  or  was  it  an  increas 
ing  power  which  had  its  origin  at  that  period?  The  Rev. 
Dr.  Philip  Slaughter  writes:  "That  (1831)  was  the  cul 
minating  point — the  flood-tide  of  anti-slavery  feeling  which 
had  been  gradually  rising  for  more  than  a  century  in 
Virginia."3 

Thomas  Jefferson  Randolph  in  his  speech  before  the 
Legislature  of  1832  deplored  the  fact  that  Mr.  Jefferson  had 
not  lived:  "to  see  the  revolution  of  the  public  mind  of 
Virginia.  He  has  not  lived  to  see  a  majority  of  the  House 
of  Delegates  in  favor  of  abolition  in  the  abstract/'4 

Washington  and  Jefferson  have  both  left  on  record  the 

Virginia  Slavery  Debate,  1832,  White. 
*Life  of  James  Buchanan,  Curtis,  1883,  Vol.  II,  p.  277. 
^Virginian  History  of  African  Colonization,  Slaughter,  p.  55. 
'Slavery  Debate,  1832,  White,  T.  J.  Randolph's  Speech,  p.  13. 


GROWING  POWER  OF  NON-SLAVEHOLDERS     145 

fact  that  the  people^of  Virginia  of  the  Revolutionary  period 
would  not  tolerate  any  proposal  of  emancipation.  Mr. 
Randolph  in  his  speech  just  quoted  from  said:  " Sixty-two 
years  ago  when  a  proposition  was  made  in  the  Legislature 
of  Virginia  by  one  of  the  oldest,  ablest  and  most  respected 
members  ...  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  slaves  he 
was  .  .  .  denounced  as  an  enemy  of  his  country." 

The  constitutions  of  the  ante  and  post-Revolutionary 
periods  in  Virginia  all  required  property  qualification  as  a 
prerequisite  to  the  suffrage,  and  apportioned  representa 
tion  in  the  General  Assembly  to  the  several  cities  and 
counties  on  the  basis  of  property  and  white  population, 
rather  than  on  the  latter  alone.  Under  this  system,  the 
slaves  being  taxed  as  property,  the  slaveholders  and  their 
counties  exercised  a  power  far  in  excess  of  that  enjoyed 
by  their  brethren  in  the  non-slaveholding  sections.  The 
General  Assembly  elected  every  state  official,  including  the 
Governor  and  the  judges  of  the  higher  courts,  and  thus  in 
the  hands  of  that  body  was  lodged  complete  control  of 
every  department  of  the  state  government. 

The  constitution  of  1830  admitted  to  the  suffrage,  in  ad 
dition  to  property-owners,  only  the  citizen  "  who  for  twelve 
months  next  preceding  (the  election)  has  been  a  house 
keeper  and  head  of  a  family  .  .  .  and  shall  have  been 
assessed  with  a  part  of  the  revenue  of  the  commonwealth 
within  the  preceding  year  and  actually  paid  the  same." 
But  this  constitution  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  General 
Assembly  the  election  of  all  the  state  officials,  including  the 
Governor,  and  continued  in  force  the  "mixed  basis"  in 
apportioning  representatives  among  the  several  cities  and 
counties.1  With  suffrage  thus  restricted,  with  a  General 

lCode  of  Virginia,  1849,  pp.  35  to  45. 


146      GROWING  POWER  OF  NON-SLAVEHOLDERS 

Assembly  in  which  property  in  slaves  secured  for  the  slave 
holders  and  their  counties  an  additional  representation 
over  that  of  the  non-slaveholders,  and  with  every  officer 
of  the  state  government  elected  by  the  Legislature  thus 
constituted,  the  political  dominance  of  the  slaveholding 
counties  over  the  non-slaveholding  counties  will  be  readily 
appreciated.  The  scheme  was  alike  inequitable  and  un- 
Republican,  yet  it  was  not  until  the  Reform  Convention 
of  1850-51  that  white  manhood  suffrage  was  established, 
the  privilege  of  electing  all  state  officials  accorded  to  the 
people,  and  the  changes  made  with  respect  to  the  basis  of 
representation  which  would  have  eventually  accorded  to 
all  the  counties  and  cities  representation  in  the  General 
Assembly  in  proportion  to  their  white  populations.1  To 
strip  the  slaveholding  counties  of  their  political  power,  to 
admit  on  an  equal  basis  to  the  suffrage  every  white  man  in 
the  commonwealth,  and  to  accord  to  the  electorate  thus 
constituted  the  privilege  of  electing  every  high  state 
official  did  not  indicate  the  growth  of  pro-slavery  sentiment. 
These  achievements  of  the  Convention  were  confessedly 
the  most  signal  victories  for  liberty  and  progress  which 
had  marked  the  history  of  Virginia  since  her  liberation  from 
British  rule.  These  fundamental  changes  in  the  consti 
tution  and  in  the  relative  rights  and  powers  of  the  slave 
holders  and  the  slaveholding  sections,  as  compared  with 
the  non-slaveholders  and  non-slaveholding  sections,  were 
ratified  by  the  people  by  a  vote  of  75,748  to  11,063— only 
five  counties  in  the  state  out  of  the  one  hundred  and  forty- 
eight  giving  majorities  in  the  negative.2 

Article  III,  Section  1,  and  Article  IV,  Section  5,  Constitution  of 
Virginia,  1851. 

^Representation  in  Virginia,  Chandler,  1896,  p.  7. 


XXI 

THE  CUSTOM  OF  BUYING  AND  SELLING  SLAVES — 
VIRGINIA'S  ATTITUDE     (Concluded) 

APPROACHING  the  subject  from  another  side,  and  review 
ing  all  the  sources  of  evidence,  we  may  reach  certain  fairly 
accurate  conclusions.  At  the  close  of  the  Revolution, 
Virginia  was  the  largest  slaveholding  state  in  the  Union. 
There  soon  grew  up  the  conviction  that  in  the  dispersion  or 
colonization  beyond  her  borders  of  at  least  a  large  portion 
of  this  population  lay  the  only  method  of  effectually  solving 
the  slavery  and  racial  problems.  In  consequence  of  this 
condition,  various  movements  were  evolved,  some  de 
signedly  for  the  attainment  of  these  objects  and  others, 
while  without  such  purpose,  yet  working  to  the  same  end. 

As  we  have  seen,  slaves  when  emancipated  were  required 
to  leave  the  state  within  one  year  from  such  date.  Mas 
ters,  ex-slaves  and  colonization  societies  were,  therefore, 
all  earnest  to  achieve  this  result.  Hence  arose  the  first 
cause  for  deportation — an  influence  and  custom  which  con 
tinued  up  to  the  Civil  War. 

The  prospects  of  improving  their  fortunes  by  emigrating 
to  the  newer  states  of  Kentucky,  Missouri  and  the  South 
impelled  large  numbers  of  slaveholders  to  leave  Vir 
ginia.  They  carried  their  slaves  with  them  and  hence 
arose  a  second  cause  which  operated  to  deport  each  year 
many  slaves  from  the  state. 

The  ever  increasing  difficulty  of  obtaining  (especially  on 
the  part  of  large  slaveholders)  any  appreciable  profit  from 

147 


148     DEPORTATION  OF  SLAVES  FROM  VIRGINIA 

the  labor  of  their  slaves  in  the  grain  and  tobacco  fields  of 
Virginia  induced  these  proprietors  to  purchase  cotton  and 
sugar  plantations  in  the  South  and  thither  from  time  to 
time  to  transport  their  slaves.  These  slaveholders  did  not 
always  emigrate  themselves.  They  simply  changed  the 
situs  of  their  slaves,  the  latter  being  often  accompanied  by 
the  sons  of  their  masters.  Thus  a  third  cause  carried 
annually  from  Virginia  many  hundreds  of  slaves. 

The  high  prices  which  slaves  commanded  on  the  planta 
tions  of  the  far  South  and  in  the  sparsely  settled  portions  of 
the  Southwest  engendered  the  practice  of  buying  slaves  in 
Virginia  and  selling  them  for  profit  in  those  sections.  De 
spite  the  opprobrium  attached  to  this  custom  there  were 
men  willing  to  engage  in  the  traffic  and  from  choice  or 
necessity  there  were  slaveholders  who  supplied  at  least  a 
portion  of  the  demand.  Hence,  the  fourth  cause  which 
contributed  to  the  yearly  deportation  of  slaves  from 
Virginia. 

Neither  the  United  States  census  nor  any  other  official 
data  avail  to  fix  the  number  of  slaves  which  annually  went 
from  Virginia  for  each  of  the  four  several  reasons  above 
referred  to.  It  is  evident,  however,  that,  as  a  rule,  pub 
licists  not  informed  as  to  the  conditions  have  combined 
these  exportations  and  attributed  them  all  to  the  custom 
of  selling  slaves.  We  are  safe  in  concluding,  therefore,  that 
the  number  of  slaves  sold  annually  from  Virginia  has  been 
grossly  exaggerated;  that  the  custom  was  revolting  to  the 
moral  sense  of  her  people  and  maintained  against  an  out 
raged  rather  than  a  sympathetic  public  sentiment. 

Most  of  the  writers  who  have  laid  this  damaging  accusa 
tion  at  the  door  of  the  Virginia  people  have  not  attempted 
to  fortify  their  position  by  authority  or  data  of  any  kind. 
Others  have  and  a  careful  analysis  of  the  facts  submitted 


ESTIMATE  OF  WILLIAM  HENRY  SMITH          149 

will  assist  in  determining  the  measure  of  truth  contained  in 
the  original  charge. 

The  recent  work,  A  Political  History  of  Slavery,  by 
William  Henry  Smith,  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  character 
of  publications  last  referred  to.  The  author  after  pointing 
out  that  the  Cotton  and  Rice  Producing  States  looked  to  the 
older  commonwealth  for  supplies  of  laborers,  proceeds : 

"Mr.  Mercer,  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  members  of 
that  remarkable  Convention  (the  Virginia  Convention  of 
1829-30)  said  that  the  tables  of  the  natural  growth  of  the 
slave  population  demonstrated  .  .  .  that  an  annual  rev 
enue  of  not  less  than  a  million  and  a  half  of  dollars  had 
been  derived  from  the  exportation  of  a  part  of  that  increase. 
Seven  years  later  the  Virginia  Times  published  an  estimate 
of  the  money  arising  from  the  sale  of  slaves  exported  dur 
ing  the  year  1836  making  the  aggregate  $24,000,000.00, 
which  showed  the  enormous  profitableness  of  slave  breed 
ing."1 

In  support  of  this  conclusion  the  author  appends  to  his 
text  three  notes,  as  follows : 

First :  "  The  Times  gave  the  whole  number  exported  at 
120,000  of  whom  80,000  were  taken  out  of  the  state  by 
their  owners  who  removed  to  new  states  and  40,000  were 
sold  to  dealers.  The  average  price  per  head  was  $600." 
(Nfles  Register,  Vol.  LI,  p.  83.) 

Second:  " In  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  in  1832  Thomas 
Jefferson  Randolph  declared  that  Virginia  had  been  con 
verted  into  '  one  grand  menagerie  where  men  are  reared  for 
the  market  like  oxen  for  the  shambles.7  This  was  con 
firmed  by  Mr.  Gholson,  another  member."  (See  Reports  in 
the  Richmond  Whig,  1832.) 

Third;   "In  Virginia  and  other  grain-growing  states  the 

1A  Political  History  of  Slavery,  William  Henry  Smith,  1903,  Vol. 
I,  p.  3. 


150  SPEECH  OF  MR.  MERCER 

blacks  do  not  support  themselves,  and  the  only  profit  their 
masters  derive  from  them  is,  repulsive  as  the  idea  may 
justly  seem,  in  breeding  them,  like  other  live  stock,  for  the 
more  Southern  states."  (American  Colonization  Society, 
1833.) 

An  examination  of  the  speech  made  by  Mr.  Mercer  on  the 
occasion  referred  to,  will  show  that  he  was  answering  the 
slaveholders'  charge  that  they  paid  upon  their  slaves  more 
than  their  just  proportion  of  taxes,  when  compared  with 
the  amount  paid  by  the  land-owners  of  the  state;  he 
pointed  out  that  for  the  four  years  following  1820  the  land 
tax  averaged  $181,000.00  per  annum  and  the  slave  tax 
$159,000.00,  but  for  the  current  year  (1829)  the  land  tax 
amounted  to  $175,000.00  and  the  slave  tax  $97,000.00. 
"  These  facts, "  said  Mr.  Mercer,  "  bear  me  out  in  the  position 
that  in  the  current  year  the  capital  in  slaves  is  taxed  less 
than  that  in  land."  The  census  showed  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  slaves  still  in  the  hands  of  their  Virginia  masters, 
while  the  "  tables  of  the  natural  growth  of  this  population" 
also  demonstrated  that  large  numbers  must  have  been 
exported  beyond  the  state.  The  portion  of  increase  in  the 
slave  population,  thus  exported,  Mr.  Mercer  estimated  at 
a  value  of  one  and  a  half  million  dollars  per  annum.  It  will 
be  observed  that  he  makes  no  attempt  to  distribute  this 
exportation  between  the  various  classes  heretofore  referred 
to.  Indeed,  the  averment  that  "  the  tables  of  the  natural 
growth  of  the  slave  population"  demonstrated  that  an 
annual  revenue  of  any  specific  sum  had  been  derived  from 
their  exportation  is,  of  course,  inaccurate.  The  tables 
referred  to  simply  indicate  the  normal  rate  of  increase  and 
the  consequent  number  of  slaves  which  must  have  been 
exported.  Whether  the  excess  had  been  emancipated,  or 
carried,  or  sent,  or  sold  by  their  masters  did  not,  of  course, 


ESTIMATE  OF  VIRGINIA  TIMES  151 

appear.  Mr.  Mercer  was  not  discussing  the  slave  trade — 
he  was  pointing  out  the  increase  in  the  number  of  slaves 
which  should  normally  accrue  to  their  masters  and  the  con 
sequent  reasonableness  of  the  tax  imposed  upon  them  as 
compared  with  that  assessed  against  the  lands. 

It  is  believed  that  this  explanation  of  the  subject  of  Mr. 
Mercer's  speech  will  qualify  the  conclusion  which  Mr. 
Smith  has  drawn  from  the  statement  cited  in  his  text. 

The  author  next  refers  to  an  "estimate  of  the  money 
arising  from  the  sale  of  slaves  during  the  year  1836 — mak, 
ing  the  aggregate  $24,000,000.00."  This  estimate  is  cited 
as  that  of  the  Virginia  Times  and  an  explanation  of  how  the 
figures  are  arrived  at  is  set  out  by  the  author  in  the  first  of 
the  three  notes  above  quoted. 

By  reference  to  Volume  LI  of  N lies'  Register,  page  83,  in 
which  the  extract  from  the  Virginia  Times  appears,  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  latter  paper  does  not  attempt  any  dis 
cussion  of  the  subject,  any  marshalling  of  statistics  or  any 
conclusions  of  its  own  drawn  therefrom.  It  simply  recites 
in  an  item  of  ten  lines — that — "  We  have  heard  intelligent 
men  estimate  the  number  of  slaves  exported  from  Virginia 
within  the  last  twelve  months  at  120,000."  The  item 
further  recites  that  of  this  number  "not  more  than  one- 
third  have  been  sold,  the  others  having  been  carried  by 
their  owners,  who  have  removed,  which  would  leave  in  the 
state  the  sum  of  $24,000,000.00  arising  from  the  sale  of 
slaves." 

"We  have  heard  intelligent  men  estimate"  is  a  some 
what  different  statement  from  that  of  the  author's  text  in 
which  the  Virginia  Times  is  made  to  fix  the  exportation  for 
the  year  1836  at  120,000,  40,000  of  whom  were  sold  to 
dealers.  How  little  value,  however,  can  be  attached  to 
"the  estimate"  will  be  appreciated  when  we  recall  that  an 


152          THE  SALE  OF  SLAVES  EXAGGERATED 

exportation  of  120,000  slaves  per  annum  would  in  four 
years  have  depopulated  the  state  of  every  single  slave. 
The  census  showed  that  there  were  469,758  slaves  in  Vir 
ginia  in  1830  and  490,865  in  1860.  By  no  possible  process 
of  computation  can  the  Virginians  of  the  period  from  1830 
to  1840  be  charged  with  "the  enormous  profitableness  of 
slave-breeding/7  arising  from  annual  sales  of  40,000  slaves, 
and  a  quarter  of  a  century  later  their  descendants  be  con 
victed  of  the  crime  of  fighting  to  perpetuate  the  traffic. 
There  would  have  been  no  slaves  from  which  the  commerce 
could  have  derived  a  supply. 

In  his  second  note,  Mr.  Smith  makes  a  quotation  from 
the  speech  of  Mr.  Randolph  in  the  Virginia  Legislature  of 
1832  wherein  the  latter  is  made  to  declare  "that  Virginia 
had  been  converted  into  one  grand  menagerie  where  men 
are  reared  for  the  market  like  oxen  for  the  shambles. " 

By  reference  to  the  whole  sentence  and  its  exact  quota 
tion  it  will  appear  that  Mr.  Randolph's  statement  was  not 
intended  to  warrant  the  conclusion  here  sought  to  be  con 
veyed.  Mr.  Randolph  said: 

"  How  can  an  honourable  mind,  a  patriot  and  a  lover  of  his 
country,  bear  to  see  this  ancient  Dominion,  rendered  illus 
trious  by  the  noble  devotion  and  patriotism  of  her  sons  in 
the  cause  of  liberty,  converted  into  one  grand  menagerie 
where  men  are  to  be  reared  for  market  like  oxen  for  the 
shambles?"1 

In  the  third  note  Mr.  Smith  cites  an  extract  from  the 
report  of  the  "American  Colonization  Society,  1833. " 

A  careful  examination  of  the  report  of  the  American 
Colonization  Society,  submitted  at  its  meeting  1833,  fails 

^Slavery  Debate,  Virginia  Legislature,  1833,  Speech  of  T.  J. 
Randolph,  p.  13. 


MR.   SMITH'S  ERRONEOUS  CITATIONS  153 

to  show  any  such  statement — or  any  phrases  or  sentiments 
from  which  such  an  accusation  could  be  inferred.  The 
report  in  its  whole  tenor  and  contents  is  just  to  the  con 
trary.  Thus  at  page  16,  referring  to  the  condition  of  public 
sentiment  in  Virginia,  it  says : 

"  That  mighty  evil  (slavery)  beneath  which  the  minds  of 
men  had  bowed  in  despair,  has  been  looked  at  as  no  longer 
incurable.  A  remedy  has  been  proposed;  the  sentiments  of 
humanity,  the  secret  wishes  of  the  heart  on  this  momentous 
topic  have  found  a  voice  and  the  wide  air  has  rung  with  it." 

Again,  at  page  17  it  says:  "Nearly  half  the  colonists  in 
Liberia  have  emigrated  from  Virginia;  and  many  citizens  of 
that  state  have  sought  aid  from  the  Society  for  removing 
thither  their  liberated  slaves  during  the  last  year.'71 

A  like  inspection  of  the  reports  of  the  Society  for  the 
years  from  1827  to  1837  inclusive  shows  no  such  statement 
as  that  cited  by  Mr.  Smith  in  his  footnote.  The  leading 
officers  of  the  Society  were  Virginians  and  its  work  had  their 
cordial  sympathy  and  co-operation.  Mr.  Smith  has  evi 
dently  accepted  the  statement  of  some  other  writer  without 
examining  for  himself  the  original  sources  of  information.2 

^Report  of  American  Colonization  Society  presented  January  20, 
1833,  pp.  16  and  17. 

2Professor  Hart,  of  Harvard  University,  in  his  recent  work, 
Slavery  and  Abolition,  says: 

"The  fact  that  some  thousands  of  negroes  every  year  left  the 
Border  States  for  the  South  seemed  to  show  that  there  was  profit 
in  keeping  them  alive;  but  recent  investigation  seems  to  establish 
that  the  greater  number  of  these  negroes  were  taken  in  a  body  by 
the  men  who  owned  them  to  settle  in  other  states."  (Slavery  and 
Abolition,  Hart,  p.  124). 


XXII 

SMALL   PROPORTION   OF  SLAVEHOLDERS  AMONG 
VIRGINIA  SOLDIERS 

THE  accusation  that  the  people  of  Virginia  of  the 
Civil  War  period  stood  ready  to  fight  "no  matter  whom 
and  little  matter  how,  for  the  protection  of  slavery  and 
slave  property,"  because  of  the  profits  derived  from  the 
inter-state  slave  trade,  would  seem  to  acquit  those  Virgini 
ans  who  derived  no  benefit  from  the  traffic.  We  have  seen, 
from  the  facts  heretofore  presented,  what  a  small  propor 
tion  of  the  people  of  Virginia  were  owners  of  slaves;  and 
all  available  data  indicate  a  still  less  proportion  of  slave 
holders  among  the  soldiers  which  the  state  contributed 
to  the  armies  of  the  Southern  Confederacy. 

Professor  A.  B.  Hart,  of  Harvard  University,  says :  "  Out 
of  12,500,000  persons,  in  the  slave-holding  communities 
in  1860,  only  about  384,000  persons — or  one  in  thirty- 
three — was  a  slaveholder."1 

The  same  author  estimates  that  each  slaveholder  was 
the  head  of  a  family  and  that,  therefore,  350,000  white 
families  in  the  South,  out  of  a  total  of  1,800,000,  owned 
slaves;  though  77,000  of  these  families  owned  only  one 
slave  each,  and  200,000  of  the  remaining  owned  less  than 
ten  slaves  each.2 

The  author  is,  of  course,  in  error  in  assuming  that  every 
slaveholder  was  the  head  of  a  family.  Doubtless  in  a 

1  Slavery  and  Abolition,  Hart,  p.  67. 
,  p.  68. 

154 


SLAVEHOLDERS  IN  THE  RANKS  155 

large  majority  of  cases  such  was  the  fact.  The  Federal 
census,  however,  from  which  his  first  figures  are  taken, 
is  correct  in  showing  the  exact  number  owning  slaves. 
This  number  included  men,  women  and  children,  and, 
not  infrequently,  a  number  of  persons  were  part  owners 
of  the  same  slave  or  slaves,  and  yet  each  was  enumerated 
as  a  slaveholder. 

Admiral  Chadwick's  analysis  of  the  census  returns  for 
Virginia  shows  that  of  the  52,128  slaveholders  in  the 
state,  one-third  held  but  one  or  two  slaves,  half  one  to  four, 
and  that  but  one  hundred  and  fourteen  persons  held  as 
many  as  one  hundred  each.  He  also  points  out  the  fact 
that  the  great  majority  of  the  soldiers  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Confederate  Armies,  from  Virginia  and  the  South,  possessed 
no  such  interest. 

From  a  mass  of  data  bearing  more  directly  upon  the 
number  of  slaveholders  in  the  ranks  of  the  Virginia  soldiers, 
we  select  two  citations : 

Major  Robert  Stiles,  late  a  prominent  member  of  the 
Richmond  Bar,  referring  to  the  personnel  of  the  Richmond 
Howitzers  (of  which  he  was  a  member)  and  the  motives 
which  impelled  them  to  fight,  writes: 

"Why  did  they  volunteer?  For  what  did  they  give 
their  lives?  .  .  .  Surely,  it  was  not  for  slavery  they  fought. 
The  great  majority  of  them  had  never  owned  a  slave, 
and  had  little  or  no  interest  in  the  institution.  My  own 
father,  for  example,  had  freed  his  slaves  long  years  before."1 

This  command  was  composed  of  representatives  of  the 
leading  families  in  the  city  of  Richmond,  at  that  time 
the  largest  slaveholding  city  in  the  state.  Here  one  would 
expect  to  find  the  slaveholding  soldiers. 

lFour  Years  Under  Marse  Robert,  Stiles,  p.  49. 


156    SLAVEHOLDERS  AMONG  THE  LEADERS 

Dr.  Hunter  McGuire,  the  medical  director  of  the  Stone 
wall  Brigade,  has  left  on  record  his  estimate  of  the  number 
of  slaveholders  in  the  ranks  of  that  command — which, 
being  drawn  from  all  portions  of  the  state,  was  more 
representative  of  the  citizenship  of  Virginia,  East  and  West : 

"The  Stonewall  Brigade  of  the  Army  of  Northern 
Virginia,"  writes  Dr.  McGuire,  "was  a  fighting  organiza 
tion.  I  knew  every  man  in  it,  for  I  belonged  to  it  for  a 
long  time;  and  I  know  that  I  am  in  proper  bounds  when 
I  assert,  that  there  was  not  one  soldier  in  thirty  who 
owned  or  ever  expected  to  own  a  slave."1 

But  it  is  also  urged  that,  while  men  without  slaves 
filled  the  ranks  of  the  Virginia  regiments,  yet  slaveholders 
led  these  soldiers  into  battle  as  they  had  led  the  people 
into  revolution. 

It  is  obviously  impracticable  to  present  the  facts  with 
reference  to  each  one  of  the  prominent  leaders  which 
Virginia  gave  to  the  armies  of  the  Confederacy.  By 
universal  accord  her  five  most  notable  generals  were, 
Robert  E.  Lee,  "Stonewall"  Jackson,  Joseph  E.  Johnston, 
A.  P.  Hill  and  J.  E.  B.  Stuart — to  whom  may  be  added 
Fitzhugh  Lee  and  Matthew  F.  Maury,  as  only  less  promi 
nent  but  no  less  representative  of  her  leading  soldiers. 

In  dealing  with  these  men,  and  their  relation  to  slavery, 
we  pass  from  the  domain  of  conjecture  into  the  realm  of 
fact. 

Robert  E.  Lee  never  owned  a  slave,  except  the  few  he 
inherited  from  his  mother — all  of  whom  he  emancipated 
many  years  prior  to  the  war.2 

lThe  Confederate  Cause  and  Conduct,  in  the  War  Between  the 
States,  McGuire  and  Christian,  p.  22. 

2See  letter  from  his  eldest  son,  General  G.  W.  Custis  Lee,  to  the 
Author,  dated  February  4,  1907,  on  file  in  Virginia  Historical 
Society. 


SLAVEHOLDERS  AMONG  THE  LEADERS    157 

"  Stone  wall"  Jackson  never  owned  but  two  slaves,  a 
man  and  a  woman,  both  of  whom  he  purchased  at  their 
own  solicitation.  He  immediately  accorded  to  them  the 
privilege  of  earning  their  freedom,  by  devoting  the  wages 
received  for  their  services  to  reimburse  him  for  the  pur 
chase  money.  This  offer  was  accepted  by  the  man,  who, 
in  due  time,  earned  his  freedom.  The  woman  declined 
the  offer,  preferring  to  remain  a  servant  in  General  Jack 
son's  family.1 

Joseph  E.  Johnston  never  owned  a  slave  and,  like 
General  Lee,  regarded  the  institution  with  great  disfavor.2 

A.  P.  Hill  never  owned  a  slave,  and  regarded  slavery  as 
an  evil,  much  to  be  deplored.3 

J.  E.  B.  Stuart  inherited  one  slave  from  his  father's 
estate;  and,  while  stationed  as  a  lieutenant  in  the  United 
States  Army  at  Fort  Leavenworth,  Kansas,  purchased 
another.  Both  of  these  he  disposed  of  some  years  prior 
to  the  war — the  first,  because  of  her  cruelty  to  one  of  his 
children,  and  the  second,  to  a  purchaser  who  undertook 
to  return  the  slave  to  his  former  home  in  Kentucky.4 

Fitzhugh  Lee  never  owned  a  slave.5 

Matthew  F.  Maury  never  owned  but  one  slave,  a  woman 
who  remained  a  servant  and  member  of  his  family  until 

lThe  Confederate  Cause  and  Conduct  in  the  War  Between  the 
States,  McGuire  and  Christian,  p.  22. 

2See  letter  from  his  nephew,  Dr.  George  Ben  Johnston,  of 
Richmond,  Va.,  dated  April  17,  1907,  to  the  Author,  on  file  in 
Virginia  Historical  Society. 

3See  letter  from  his  son-in-law,  James  Macgill,  dated  April  20, 
1908,  to  the  Author,  on  file  in  Virginia  Historical  Society. 

4See  letter  from  his  widow,  Mrs.  Flora  Stuart,  to  the  Author, 
dated  March  25, 1908,  on  file  in  Virginia  Historical  Society. 

6See  letter  from  his  brother,  Daniel  M.  Lee,  to  the  Author,  dated 
May  28, 1908,  on  file  in  Virginia  Historical  Society. 


158    SLAVEHOLDERS  AMONG  THE  LEADERS 

her  death,  some  years  after  the  war.1      As  we  have  seen, 
he  characterized  the  institution  as  "a  curse."2 

*See  letter  from  his  son,  Colonel  Richard   L.    Maury,  to  the 
Author,  dated  June  1,  1907,  on  file  in  Virginia  Historical  Society. 
2See  Life  of  Matthew  F.  Maury,  Corbin,  p.  131. 


XXIII 

SOME  OF  THE  ALMOST  INSUPERABLE  DIFFICULTIES 

WHICH   EMBARRASSED   EVERY   PLAN   OF 

EMANCIPATION 

THE  problems  and  difficulties  which  beset  emancipa 
tion  in  Virginia  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

First:  The  legal  rights  of  the  slaveholders  and  their 
creditors; 

Second:  The  moral  and  physical  well-being  of  the  slaves; 
and 

Third:  The  political  and  social  interests  of  the  state. 

To  these  inherent  difficulties  should  be  superadded  the 
lack  of  free  discussion  and  the  growth  of  bitterness  and 
reactionary  sentiments  occasioned  largely  by  partisan  and 
ofttimes  criminal  instigations  coming  from  beyond  the 
state. 

It  will  not  be  questioned  that  of  all  men,  except  the 
slaves  themselves,  the  slaveholders  were  most  deeply 
interested  in  the  subject  of  emancipation.  They  possessed 
a  direct  pecuniary  interest  in  the  slaves  and  were  usually 
the  owners  of  large  tracts  of  land  dependent,  it  was  believed, 
for  cultivation,  upon  their  labor.  Thus  it  was  thought 
that  emancipation  without  compensation  involved  not 
only  the  loss  of  their  slaves,  but  a  great  depreciation  in 
the  value  of  their  lands.  In  addition  to  these  direct 
losses  would  come  the  burden  of  caring  for  the  poor,  the 
afflicted,  and  the  criminal  classes  of  the  ex-slaves,  not  to 
mention  the  cost  of  educating  the  rising  generation — the 

159 


160  LEGAL  RIGHTS  OF  SLAVEHOLDERS 

major  part  of  all  of  which  would  fall  upon  the  communities 
where  the  ex-slaves  lived,  and  thus  upon  the  remnant  of 
property  left  to  their  former  owners. 

To  the  foregoing  embarrassments  must  be  added  the 
rights  of  creditors.  A  great  majority  of  the  slaves  in 
Virginia  descended  to  their  owners  by  the  laws  of  inher 
itance,  just  as  the  plantations  of  which  they  were  virtually 
part.  With  the  slaves  and  the  lands,  came  the  debts  of 
the  ancestors,  or,  in  the  progress  of  time,  new  debts  were 
incurred.  In  all  such  instances  the  debts  of  creditors 
must  be  provided  for  before  any  change  could  be  made  in 
the  status  of  slaves  bound  for  their  payment.  All  these 
considerations  convinced  fair-minded  men  that  some 
substantial  measure  of  compensation  must  be  made  the 
slaveholders  before  they  could  be  expected  to  absolve 
their  slaves  from  service.  But  from  what  source  was 
this  great  fund  to  be  gathered?  Despite  the  widespread 
sentiment  favorable  to  emancipation,  neither  state  nor 
nation  gave  sign  of  willingness  to  assume  the  burden. 

But  beyond  the  financial  difficulties  mentioned  was  the 
attitude  of  that  class  of  slaveholders  who  cherished  no 
desire  for  emancipation  and  resented  every  such  suggestion 
as  a  wanton  invasion  of  their  safety  and  their  rights. 
They  were  satisfied  with  the  status  quo;  they  neither 
desired  change  nor  discussion  of  its  supposed  advantages. 
They  met  every  proposal  with  a  resolute  insistence  upon 
their  legal  rights  under  the  constitutions,  State  and  Federal, 
and  manifested  an  intolerance  of  thought  and  speech 
with  respect  to  the  institution  which  filled  the  friends  of 
moderation  and  progress  with  mournful  appreciation  of 
the  hindrances  which  beset  their  path. 

How  far  a  conscientious  regard  for  the  moral  and  physical 
well-being  of  the  slaves  entered  into  the  considerations 


THE  WELL-BEING  OF  THE  SLAVES  161 

of  the  time  as  a  deterrent  cause  against  their  emancipation, 
cannot  be  determined.  Undoubtedly  such  sentiments  ex 
isted  among  many  earnest  men  favorable  thereto. 

From  the  mass  of  facts  and  medley  of  voices  certain 
conclusions  can  be  drawn. 

Thus  it  may  be  affirmed  that  the  slaves  in  Virginia  were 
better  off  as  a  result  of  their  training  and  experience  in 
servitude  than  they  would  have  been  had  their  ancestors 
never  set  foot  upon  her  soil.  It  is  equally  true  that  theirs 
was  but  a  partial  development  and  that  freedom  was 
necessary  to  the  complete  man.  As  the  time  comes  in  the 
life  of  a  child  when  the  privileges  and  dangers  of  self- 
expression  and  self-control  must  supplant  the  restraints 
of  the  home  and  the  school-room,  so  in  the  life  of  these 
children  of  larger  growth,  freedom  with  its  awesome 
dangers  and  soul-inspiring  possibilities  was  essential  to  any 
well-rounded  and  continuous  advance. 

Again,  freedom  was  a  help  in  the  development  of  those 
who  had  made  a  certain  measure  of  progress  in  their 
moral,  intellectual  and  physical  being;  yet  for  those  who 
were  not  thus  prepared,  its  untimely  coming  might  prove 
the  dawn  of  a  darker  day,  unless  accompanied  by  wise 
nurture  and  sympathetic  guidance  of  the  feet,  trained 
only  for  the  paths  of  dependence. 

Mr.  Jefferson  doubtless  expressed  the  sentiments  of  a 
large  class  of  thinkers  when  he  said:  "As  far  as  I  can 
judge  from  the  experiments  which  have  been  made,  to 
give  liberty  to,  or  rather  to  abandon,  persons  whose  habits 
have  been  formed  in  slavery,  is  like  abandoning  children/'1 

Experience  with  respect  to  emancipations  made  prior  to 
the  Civil  War  strongly  tended  to  confirm  these  views. 

Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford,  Vol.  V,  p.  66. 


162       CONDITION  OF  FREE  NEGROES,   1830-1860 

The  conditions,  moral,  intellectual  and  physical,  of  the 
free  negroes  of  Virginia  contrasted,  as  a  rule,  most  un 
favorably  with  that  of  their  brethren  still  in  bonds. 

The  results  ot  emancipation  where  the  slaves  had  been 
carried  to  free  states,  were,  on  the  whole,  not  much  more 
encouraging. 

Professor  McMaster,  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
referring  to  the  condition  of  the  free  negroes  in  those  states 
at  the  time  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  writes:  "In  spite 
of  their  freedom  they  were  a  despised,  proscribed,  and 
poverty-stricken  class."1 

Mr.  Clay,  speaking  December  17,  1829,  said: 

"  Of  all  the  descriptions  of  our  population  and  of  either 
portion  of  the  African  race,  the  free  people  of  color  are  by 
far,  as  a  class,  the  most  corrupt,  depraved  and  abandoned. 
There  are  many  honourable  exceptions  among  them,  and  I 
take  pleasure  in  bearing  testimony  to  some  I  know.  It  is 
not  so  much  their  fault  as  the  consequence  of  their  anomal 
ous  condition."2 

Dr.  Leonard  Bacon,  in  a  sermon  before  his  congregation 
in  New  Haven,  Conn.,  July  4,  1830,  said: 

"  Who  are  the  free  people  of  color  in  the  United  States, 
and  what  are  they?  In  this  city  there  are  from  eight 
hundred  to  one  thousand.  Of  these,  a  few  families  are 
honest,  sober,  industrious,  pious  and  in  many  points  of 
view,  respectable  But  what  are  the  remainder?  Every 
one  knows  their  condition  to  be  a  condition  of  deep 
and  dreadful  degradation,  but  few  have  formed  any 
conception  of  the  reality.  The  fact  is,  that  as  a  class, 
they  are  branded  with  ignominy.  .  .  .  There  are  in  this 
country  three  hundred  thousand  freedmen,  who  are  free 
men  only  in  name,  degraded  to  the  dust  and  forming 

history  of  the  United  States,  McMaster,  Vol.  IV,  p.  558. 
2The  African  Repository  and  Colonial  Journal,  Vol.  VI,  No.  1, 
p.  12. 


OUTLAY  NECESSARY  TO  EMANCIPATION         163 

hardly  anything  else  than  a  mass  of  pauperism  and  crime. m 

The  biographers  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison  have  recorded 
that  at  the  North,  prior  to  the  Civil  War: 

"The  free  colored  people  were  looked  upon  as  an 
inferior  caste  to  whom  their  liberty  was  a  curse,  and  their 
lot  worse  than  that  of  the  slaves,  with  this  difference,  that 
while  the  latter  were  to  be  kept  in  bondage  '  for  their  own 
good'  it  would  have  been  very  wicked  to  enslave  the 
former  for  their  good.''2 

We  need  not  pause  to  consider  the  causes  which  reduced 
the  free  negroes  of  the  Northern  States  to  the  conditions 
here  described.  That  the  free  negroes  of  Virginia  should 
have  made  little  or  no  progress  is  easily  accounted  for  by 
the  abnormal  conditions  amid  which  they  lived.  There 
was  confessedly  scant  chance  for  free  negroes  in  com 
munities  densely  populated  with  negro  slaves.  Many  of 
the  friends  of  emancipation,  however,  observing  this  same 
phenomenon  in  both  slave  and  free  states,  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  freedom  under  existing  conditions  was  hurt 
ful  rather  than  helpful.  Others  concluded  that  it  was  not 
freedom,  but  the  lack  of  freedom  with  all  its  normal  privi 
leges,  which  had  fettered  the  feet  of  these  newly  manumitted 
slaves.  Let  the  state  pay  the  owners  and  emancipate  the 
whole  body  of  slaves;  let  education  and  training  for  freedom 
go  hand  in  hand  with  opportunity  for  achieving,  and  then 
emancipation  would  be  justified  of  her  children.  For 
this  immense  outlay  Virginia  was  confessedly  not  ready, 
and  so  the  earnest  believer  in  emancipation  looked  to 
colonization  as  the  only  door  through  which  the  slave  might 
enter  upon  liberty  with  a  man's  chance  for  progress  and 
self-respecting  independence. 

Liberia  Bulletin,  No.  15,  p.  7. 

William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  I,  pp.  253-254. 


xxrv 

SOME  OF  THE  ALMOST  INSUPERABLE  DIFFICULTIES 

WHICH  EMBARRASSED  EVERY  PLAN  OF 

EMANCIPATION    (Continued) 

BEYOND  all  the  difficulties  mentioned,  there  loomed  the 
more  portentous  problem  of  the  effect  upon  the  state's 
political  and  social  well-being  of  the  introduction  into  her 
free  population  of  a  great  company  of  negroes,  whether  as 
citizens  or  suffragists,  or  mere  tenants  at  the  will  of  their 
white  brethren.  What  should  be  the  outcome  of  such  an 
unparalleled  experiment  as  universal  emancipation  under 
the  conditions  existing  in  Virginia?  The  results  of  eman 
cipation  in  the  free  states  furnished  no  assurance  because 
there  the  number  of  negroes  was  so  small  as  to  constitute 
a  negligible  quantity.  What  were  the  voices  of  history 
which  came  from  over-sea?  In  Spain,  after  centuries  of 
conflict,  the  whites  had  finally  driven  the  remnant  of  the 
Moors  literally  into  the  Mediterranean.  In  San  Domingo, 
after  the  carnival  of  blood  had  spent  its  force,  the  blacks 
had  expelled  all  the  surviving  whites  from  the  island. 

"It  is  futile/'  said  Mr.  Jefferson,  "to  hope  to  retain 
and  incorporate  the  blacks  into  the  state.  Deep-rooted 
prejudices  of  the  whites,  ten  thousand  recollections  of  the 
blacks,  of  injuries  sustained,  new  provocations,  the  real 
distinction  Nature  has  made,  and  many  other  circum 
stances  will  divide  us  into  parties,  and  produce  convulsions 
which  will  probably  never  end  but  in  the  extermination  of 
one  or  the  other  race."1 

^History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  Ballagh,  p.  132. 
164 


STATUS  OF  THE  FREE  NEGRO  IN  THE  STATE   165 

But  casting  aside  these  tragic  warnings,  the  question  of 
what  would  be  the  result  of  the  great  experiment,  stood 
unanswered.  What  place  in  the  life  of  the  commonwealth 
were  these  people  to  fill?  Should  they  be  trained  for  the 
obligations  of  freedom  and  then  denied  its  privileges? 
Should  they  be  accorded  the  right  of  suffrage?  If  not,  how 
would  its  denial  comport  with  the  genius  of  our  institutions 
and  the  aspirations  of  our  people?  If  entrusted  with  the 
suffrage  how  was  the  well-being  of  communities  to  be 
assured  where,  having  the  majority,  they  would  become 
political  masters?  Had  negroes  ever,  in  the  world's  his 
tory,  ruled  in  peace  and  order  a  community  largely  popu 
lated  by  whites?  Was  the  race  to  be  kept  in  a  state  of 
quasi-dependence — beholden  for  their  social  and  economic 
privileges  to  the  very  people  with  whom  they  must  come  in 
competition?  What  provision  for  the  pauperism,  the 
vagrancy,  the  lunacy  and  the  crime  which  would  certainly 
follow  the  removal  of  the  restraints  of  slavery?  What 
measure  and  character  of  education  for  the  young  and  by 
whom  provided?  These  and  many  more  like  them  were 
the  questions,  which,  from  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  had 
confronted  the  people  of  Virginia.  What  should  be  the 
relations,  political  and  social,  of  the  two  races  after  eman 
cipation?  Speaking  in  September,  1850,  in  Congress,  on  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,  Gov.  James  McDowell,  of  Virginia,  said: 

"Physical  amalgamation?  .  .  .  ruinous,  if  it  were  pos 
sible.  .  .  .  Political  and  civil  amalgamation  just  as  im 
possible.  .  .  .  Emancipation  with  rights  of  residence  and 
property,  but  exclusion  from  social,  civil  and  political 
equality,  would  conduce,  sooner  or  later,  to  a  war  of 
colors."1 

Congressional  Globe.  31st  Congress.  1st  Session.  App.  1678. 


166          VIEWS  OF   RIVES  AND    DE  TOCQUEVILLE 

Speaking  ten  years  later  in  the  Peace  Conference,  at 
Washington,  Ex-Senator  William  C.  Rives,  of  Virginia, 
said :  "  It  has  occupied  the  attention  of  the  wisest  men  of 
our  time.  ...  In  fact,  it  is  not  a  question  of  slavery  at  all. 
It  is  a  question  of  race."1 

These  two  great  Virginians  were  strong  anti-slavery  men, 
yet  they  stood  appalled  before  the  problems  of  immediate 
emancipation  without  deportation  or  colonization.  That 
their  views  were  not  the  product  of  their  environment, 
will  appear  from  expressions  of  eminent  men  not  so 
situated. 

M.  de  Tocqueville,  whose  work,  Democracy  in  America, 
is  the  subject  of  the  widest  appreciation,  has  given  to  the 
world  in  his  notable  book,  published  in  1838,  his  conclu 
sions  with  respect  to  this  subject.  "The  most  formidable 
of  all  the  ills,"  he  writes,  "  which  threaten  the  future  exist 
ence  of  the  Union,  arises  from  the  presence  of  a  black 
population  upon  its  territory."2 

Again  he  writes:  "I  do  not  imagine  that  the  white  and 
black  races  will  ever  live  in  any  country  upon  an  equal 
footing.  But  I  believe  the  difficulty  to  be  still  greater  in 
the  United  States  than  elsewhere."3 

In  conclusion,  he  says: 

"When  I  contemplate  the  condition  of  the  South  I  can 
only  discover  the  alternative  which  may  be  adopted  by  the 
white  inhabitants  of  those  states,  namely,  either  to  eman 
cipate  the  negroes  and  to  intermingle  with  them;  or,  remain 
ing  isolated  from  them,  to  keep  them  in  a  state  of  slavery 
as  long  as  possible.  All  intermediate  measures  seem  to  me 
likely  to  terminate,  and  that  shortly,  in  the  most  horrible  of 

^Proceedings  of  Peace  Convention,  Crittenden,  p.  139. 
^Democracy  in  America,  de  Tocqueville,  Vol.  II,  p.  214. 
*Idem,  p.  238, 


VIEWS  OF  DOUGLAS  AND  SHERMAN  167 

civil  wars,  and  perhaps  in  the  extirpation  of  one  or  the  other 
of  the  two  races."1 

Stephen  A.  Douglas,  speaking  at  Ottawa,  111.,  August 
21st,  1858,  said: 

"  For  one  I  am  opposed  to  negro  citizenship  in  any  and 
every  form.  I  believe  this  Government  was  made  by  white 
men,  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity  for 
ever;  and  I  am  in  favor  of  confining  citizenship  to  white 
men, — men  of  European  birth  and  descent,  instead  of 
conferring  it  upon  negroes,  Indians  and  other  inferior 


General  William  T.  Sherman,  writing  in  July,  1860, 
said: 

"  All  the  Congresses  on  earth  can't  make  the  negro  any 
thing  else  than  what  he  is;  he  must  be  subject  to  the  white 
man,  or  he  must  amalgamate  or  be  destroyed.  Two  such 
races  cannot  live  in  harmony,  save  as  master  and  slave. 
Mexico  shows  the  result  of  general  equality  and  amalgama 
tion,  and  the  Indians  give  a  fair  illustration  of  the  fate  of 
negroes  if  they  are  released  from  the  control  of  the  whites."3 

William  H.  Seward,  speaking  at  Detroit,  Michigan, 
September  4th,  1860,  said: 

"The  great  fact  is  now  fully  realized  that  the  African 
race  here  is  a  foreign  and  feeble  element,  like  the  Indians, 
incapable  of  assimilation,  .  .  .  and  that  it  is  a  pitiful 
exotic,  unwisely  and  unnecessarily  transplanted  into  our 
fields,  and  which  it  is  unprofitable  to  cultivate  at  the  cost 
of  the  desolation  of  the  native  vineyard."4 

Democracy  in  America,  de  Tocqueville,  Vol.  II,  p.  245. 
2The  Negro  Problem,  Abraham  Lincoln's  Solution,  Pickett,  p.  446. 
^General  Sherman's  Letters  Home,    Howe,  Scribner's  Magazine, 
April,  1909,  p.  400. 

*The  Negro  Problem,  Abraham  Lincoln's  Solution,  Pickett,  p.  449. 


168  VIEWS  OF  LINCOLN 

Let  us  turn  to  the  more  hopeful  and  yet  halting  con 
clusions  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  In  his  speech  at  Quincy, 
Illinois,  October  15th,  1858,  in  the  Lincoln-Douglas 
Debate,  he  said : 

"I  have  no  purpose  to  introduce  political  and  social 
equality  between  the  white  and  black  races.  There  is  a 
physical  difference  between  the  two  which,  in  my  judg 
ment,  would  probably  forever  forbid  their  living  together 
upon  the  footing  of  perfect  equality,  and  inasmuch  as  it 
becomes  a  necessity  that  there  must  be  a  difference,  I, 
as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which 
I  belong  having  the  superior  position."1 

In  the  same  debate  at  Charleston,  111.,  September  18th, 
1858,  he  had  said: 

"  I  will  say  then  that  I  am  not,  nor  ever  have  been,  in 
favor  of  bringing  about,  in  any  way,  the  social  and  political 
equality  of  the  white  and  black  races;  that  I  am  not,  nor 
ever  have  been,  in  favor  of  making  voters  or  jurors  of 
negroes,  nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  nor  to  inter 
marry  with  white  people;  and  I  will  say  in  addition  to 
this  that  there  is  a  physical  difference  between  the  white 
and  black  races  which  I  believe  will  forever  forbid  the 
two  races  living  together  on  terms  of  social  and  political 
equality,"2 

How  unsatisfactory  would  be  the  status  of  the  two 
races  in  a  state  where  such  conditions  obtained,  Mr. 
Lincoln  must  have  appreciated,  and  so,  as  we  have  seen,  he 
turned  to  the  colonization  of  the  negroes  as  the  real  solution 
of  the  problem. 

1 Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H.. 
Vol.  I,  p.  458. 
*Idem,  p.  457. 


CONDITION  OF  FREE  NEGROES  AT  THE  NORTH  169 

Throughout  the  North  as  well  as  in  Virginia  there  were 
thoughtful  men  who  knew  that  here  was  the  difficulty. 
Slavery  might  be  abolished,  but  the  presence  of  two  non- 
assimilable  races,  separated  by  centuries  in  their  stages 
of  development,  endeavoring  to  live  in  peace  under  a 
Republican  form  of  government — these  conditions  pre 
sented  the  problem  which  would  tax  to  the  utmost  their 
resourcefulness  and  patience. 

How  strong  was  the  sense  of  danger  among  the  people 
of  the  free  states,  which  would  result  from  such  condi 
tions,  may  be  read  in  the  provisions  of  their  constitutions 
and  laws. 

Probably  in  New  England  the  laws  were  more  favorable 
to  free  negroes  than  in  any  other  part  of  the  North;  but, 
even  there,  conditions  were  far  from  normal,  and  certainly 
not  such  as  to  encourage  the  immigration  of  the  free  blacks 
from  Maryland  and  Virginia — where  they  were  most 
numerous. 

In  1833,  the  Legislature  of  Connecticut,  endeavoring  to 
prevent  the  establishment  of  schools  in  that  state  for  non 
resident  negroes,  enacted  a  law  prohibiting  such  schools, 
except  with  the  consent "  of  a  majority  of  the  civil  authority 
and  also  of  the  selectmen  of  the  town  in  which  such  school, 
&C.,"1  is  to  be  located.  The  preamble  of  this  act  justifies 
its  passage  by  declaring  that  the  establishment  of  such 
schools  "  would  tend  to  the  great  increase  of  the  colored 
population  of  the  state,  and  thereby  to  the  injury  of  the 
people,  &c."  The  negro  populations  of  Vermont  and 
New  Hampshire  had  actually  decreased  in  the  half  century 
between  1810  and  1860,  while  that  of  Massachusetts  had 
increased  less  than  three  thousand. 

lWUliam  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  I,  p.  321. 


170  LAWS  AGAINST  FREE  NEGROES 

The  biographers  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison  record  the 
fact  that  there  existed  a — 

"  Spirit  which  everywhere  at  the  North,  either  by  statute 
or  custom,  denied  to  a  dark  skin,  civil,  social  and  educa 
tional  equality, — which  in  Boston  forbade  any  merchant 
or  respectable  mechanic  to  take  a  colored  apprentice; 
kept  the  colored  people  out  of  most  public  conveyances; 
and  permitted  any  common  carrier  by  land  or  sea,  on  the 
objections  of  a  white  passenger,  to  violate  his  contract 
with  'a  nigger'  however  cultivated  or  refined."1 

The  states  of  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania 
had  by  statutes  deprived  free  negroes  of  many  of  the 
privileges  enjoyed  in  the  period  immediately  succeeding 
the  Revolution.  Thus,  New  Jersey  in  1807,  and  Pennsyl 
vania  in  1838,  deprived  them  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  and 
New  York  in  1821  required  of  them  as  a  prerequisite  to 
voting  a  much  higher  property  qualification  than  was 
required  of  the  white  citizens.2  Professor  A.  B.  Hart 
declares:  "These  exclusions  branded  the  negroes  as  of  a 
different  caste,  even  in  the  North,  and  it  was  backed  up  by 
other  unfriendly  legislation."3 

But  it  was  chiefly  in  those  free  states  on  the  same  lines 
of  latitude  as  Virginia  and  Maryland,  and  in  which  the 
free  negroes  would  therefore  be  most  liable  to  settle,  that 
the  laws  obstructing  or  forbidding  their  immigration  were 
most  pronounced. 

Early  in  the  century  Ohio  enacted  laws  inhibiting 
negroes  from  settling  in  that  state,  unless  they  produced 
certificates  of  their  freedom,  from  a  Court  of  Record,  and 
executed  bonds,  with  approved  security,  not  to  become 

William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  I,  p.  253. 
^Slavery  and  Abolition,  Hart,  p.  83. 
3Idem,  p.  83. 


EXCLUDED  FROM  VARIOUS  STATES  171 

charges  upon  the  counties  in  which  they  settled.  They 
were  not  permitted  to  give  evidence  in  court  in  any  cause 
where  a  white  man  was  party  to  the  controversy  or  prosecu 
tion,  nor  could  they  send  their  children  to  the  public 
schools.  About  the  middle  of  the  century  many  of  these 
laws  were  repealed,  but,  by  the  constitution  adopted  as 
late  as  1851,  they  were  denied  the  right  to  vote,  and  were 
excluded  from  the  militia.1 

Indiana  at  first  permitted  free  negroes  to  settle  in  the 
state,  provided  they  gave  bonds,  with  approved  security, 
not  to  become  charges  upon  the  counties  where  they  lived; 
but,  in  1851,  a  new  constitution  was  adopted  which 
specifically  provided  (Article  XIII,  Section  1)  that  "no 
negro  or  mulatto  shall  come  into  or  settle  in  the  state  after 
the  adoption  of  this  constitution."2 

This  clause  in  the  constitution  was  adopted  by  over 
ninety  thousand  majority  of  the  popular  vote.3 

In  Illinois,  following  a  series  of  laws  of  like  import,  an 
act  was  passed  in  1853,  "to  prevent  the  immigration  of 
free  negroes  into  this  state,"  the  third  section  of  which 
declared  it  a  misdemeanor  for  a  negro  or  mulatto,  bond 
or  free,  to  come  into  the  state  with  the  intention  of  residing.4 
Section  four  of  this  act  provided  that  any  negro  coming 
into  the  state  in  violation  of  the  act  should  be  fined  and  sold 
for  a  time  to  pay  the  fine  and  cost. 

In  1862,  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  then  in 
session,  the  provisions  of  this  statute  were  engrafted  upon 
the  organic  law  of  the  state.  Article  XVIII  provided: 

lHistory  of  Negro  Race  in  America,  Williams,  Vol.  II,  pp.  111-119. 
^History  of  Negro  Race  in  America,  Williams,  Vol.  II,  pp.  119-122. 
*Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America,  Wilson,  Vol.  II, 
p.  185. 

^History  of  Negro  Race  in  America,  Williams,  Vol.  II,  p.  123. 


172    NORTHERN  DREAD  OF  FREE  NEGROES 

Section  1.  "No  negro  or  mulatto  shall  immigrate  or 
settle  in  this  state  after  the  adoption  of  the  constitution." 

This  article  of  the  constitution  was  submitted  to  the 
popular  vote  separately  from  the  body  of  the  constitution, 
and,  though  the  latter  was  rejected  by  over  16,000  majority, 
the  former  was  made  a  part  of  the  organic  law  of  Illinois 
by  a  majority  of  100,590.  This  vote  was  taken  in  August, 
1862,  and  thus,  barely  a  month  before  Mr.  Lincoln's  first 
Proclamation  of  Emancipation,  the  people  of  his  own 
state,  by  a  vote  approaching  unanimity,  placed  in  their 
constitution  this  clause  preventing  free  negroes  from 
coming  into  their  commonwealth.1 

By  the  constitution  of  Oregon,  adopted  on  November 
9th,  1857,  it  was  provided  that: 

"  No  free  negro  or  mulatto,  not  residing  in  this  state  at 
the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  shall  come, 
reside  or  be  within  this  state  .  .  .  and  the  legislative 
assembly  shall  provide  by  penal  laws  for  the  removal 
by  public  officers  of  all  such  negroes  and  mulattoes,  and 
for  their  effectual  exclusion  from  the  state,  and  for  the 
punishment  of  persons  who  shall  bring  them  into  the 
state  or  employ  or  harbor  them."2 

This  provision  of  the  constitution  was  adopted  by  a 
popular  vote  of  8040  to  1081  against  it. 

If  the  people  of  the  North  thus  regarded  their  few 
negroes  as  a  dangerous  and  perplexing  element,  how  much 
more  should  the  people  of  Virginia  hesitate  in  face  of  the 
conditions  and  problems  which  confronted  them?  If 
Indiana  and  Illinois,  with  populations  of  over  three  million 

Illinois  Convention  Journal,  1862,  p.  1098. 

*The  Organic  and  Other  General  Laws  of  Oregon,  1843-72,  pp. 
97-98. 


LINCOLN'S  ESTIMATE  OF  THE  DANGER         173 

whites  and  less  than  twenty  thousand  blacks,  felt  con 
strained  to  deny  free  negroes  the  right  to  enter  their  states, 
how  much  more  should  their  sister,  Virginia,  with  only 
one  million  whites  and  nearly  a  half  million  black  slaves, 
fear  to  add  to  her  already  large  free  negro  population? 

This  sense  of  danger  to  their  political  and  social  well- 
being  arising  from  the  threatened  presence  of  negroes  in 
large  numbers  was  felt  by  the  whites  of  the  free  states 
even  after  two  years  of  civil  war  had  wrought  its  changes 
in  sentiment,  and  Mr.  Lincoln's  first  Proclamation  of  Eman 
cipation  had  been  given  to  the  world.  In  his  message 
to  Congress  in  December,  1862,  the  President,  in  urging 
his  plan  for  national  aid  to  facilitate  emancipation  and 
deportation,  endeavored  to  meet  and  allay  these  fears. 
He  said: 

"  But  it  is  dreaded  that  the  freed  people  will  swarm  forth 
and  cover  the  whole  land.  Are  they  not  already  in  the 
land?  Will  liberation  make  them  more  numerous? 
Equally  distributed  among  the  whites  of  the  whole  country, 
and  there  would  be  but  one  colored  to  seven  whites.  Could 
the  one  in  any  way  disturb  the  seven?  .  .  . 

"But  why  should  emancipation  South  send  the  free 
people  North?  People  of  any  color  seldom  run  unless 
there  be  something  to  run  from.  Heretofore  colored 
people  to  some  extent  have  fled  North  from  bondage  and 
now  perhaps  from  both  bondage  and  destitution.  But  if 
gradual  emancipation  and  deportation  be  adopted  they 
will  have  neither  to  flee  from.  .  .  .  And  in  any  event 
cannot  the  North  decide  for  itself  whether  to  receive 
them?"' 

These  appealing  words  of  Mr.  Lincoln  show  that  in  the 
very  hour  when  the  inspiring  vision  of  emancipation  was 
being  held  up  before  the  people  of  the  free  states,  they 

1Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  140-141. 


174         LINCOLN'S  ESTIMATE   OF  THE   DANGER 

were  balancing  the  satisfaction  of  its  achievement  with  the 
dangers  to  their  peace  which  might  follow  any  substantial 
increase  in  their  negro  population. 

"Cannot  the  North  decide  for  itself  whether  to  receive 
them?"  were  the  reassuring  words  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Virginia 
had  no  such  alternative. 


XXV 

SOME  OF  THE  ALMOST  INSUPERABLE  DIFFICULTIES 
WHICH  EMBARRASSED  EVERY  PLAN  OF  EMANCI 
PATION    (Concluded) 

"  MEN  are  never  so  likely  to  settle  a  question  rightly  as 
when  they  discuss  it  freely."  In  these  words  Lord  Mac- 
aulay  fixes  free  discussion  as  a  prime  requisite  to  the  right 
solution  of  problems,  however  difficult.  It  was  one  of  the 
baneful  features  of  slavery  and  the  racial  problems  attend 
ing  it  that  in  the  period  just  antedating  the  Civil  War 
tolerant  discussion  was  almost  banished  from  the  arena. 
As  a  rule,  men  of  moderate  views  and  sane  counsels  were 
driven  to  the  rear,  while  the  Fanatics  of  the  North  and  the 
Fire-eaters  of  the  South  held  the  centre  of  the  stage.  Vir 
ginia  was  not  wholly  exempt  from  these  conditions  which 
in  her  case  had  their  origin  and  growth  in  causes  arising 
both  within  and  beyond  her  borders. 

As  we  have  seen,  slavery  in  Virginia  existed  in  certain 
well-defined  localities  and  was  confined  in  ownership  to  a 
small  minority  of  her  people.  Thus  the  divergence  of 
interests  between  the  two  classes  of  her  white  population 
assumed  a  sectional  character  which  was,  in  turn,  intensified 
by  reason  of  an  archaic  arrangement  with  respect  to  repre 
sentation  in  her  General  Assembly.  As  heretofore  ex 
plained,  the  representatives  in  her  Legislature  were  appor 
tioned  among  the  various  cities  and  counties  of  the  com 
monwealth  not  on  the  basis  of  their  respective  white  popu 
lations,  but  upon  what  was  known  as  the  "mixed  basis" — 

175 


176  LACK  OF  FREE  DISCUSSION  IN  STATE 

that  is — the  quantum  of  property  was  taken  into  account 
along  with  the  number  of  white  inhabitants.  Slaves  were 
assessed  and  taxed  as  property  and  so  the  white  people  in 
the  slave-owning  sections  possessed  a  representative  power 
in  the  State  Legislature  as  against  their  brethren  in  the 
non-slave-owning  sections  far  beyond  that  to  which  their 
numbers  entitled  them.  Against  this  provision  of  Virginia's 
constitution  the  whites  of  the  growing  western  section,  with 
some  assistance  from  the  east,  waged  perpetual  war.  In 
this  way  slavery  in  Virginia  became  involved  in  a  con 
troversy  the  heat  and  conflicts  of  which  served  to  intensify 
the  feeling  with  respect  to  its  continuance  or  abolition. 
In  like  manner  this  controversy  augmented  the  power  of 
the  friends  of  slavery  by  rallying  to  their  ranks  the  con 
servative  opponents  of  simple  manhood  suffrage,  the 
property  interests  and  all  those  who,  like  John  Randolph 
of  Roanoke,  looked,  as  of  old,  to  the  East  for  light  and 
leading.  It  was  not  until  the  Convention  of  1850  that  this 
provision  of  Virginia's  constitution  was  amended,  but  as 
the  change  was  not  to  be  fully  effective  until  1865  the 
results  of  this  augmentation  of  power  to  the  people  of  the 
white  sections  were  never  made  manifest  in  her  laws. 

"Slavery  is  a  cancer  in  your  face/'  declared  that  master 
of  epigram,  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke.  The  world  saw 
it.  The  victim  of  the  disease  knew  it  was  there.  Between 
the  pain  of  its  presence  and  the  dread  lest  the  surgeon's 
knife  might  not  work  a  cure,  the  patient  halted  and  hesi 
tated  and,  by  manifold  methods,  sought  to  mitigate  its 
pain  or  banish  the  thought  of  its  existence.  Thus  silence 
for  to-day  and  hope  for  to-morrow  was  his  fatuous  policy. 

Slavery  was  at  war  with  the  ideals  upon  which  Virginians 
had  founded  their  commonwealth.  It  was  a  burden  upon 
her  advance  along  every  line  of  normal  achievement.  It  was 


CAUSES  IN  THE  STATE,  WHICH  HINDERED       177 

repugnant  to  the  sensibilities  of  thousands  of  her  most 
devoted  sons  and  yet,  despairing  of  any  present  remedy, 
they  sternly  deprecated  discussion  as  a  disloyal  parading 
before  the  world  of  this  skeleton  in  her  closet. 

Slavery  made  its  home  among  the  great  plantations 
spreading  their  broad  acres  far  from  the  centres  of  popu 
lation,  their  owners  living  distant  one  from  the  other.  It 
required,  therefore,  some  more  persuasive  force  than  bolts 
and  bars,  to  protect  these  isolated  whites  from  the  fury  of 
the  blacks  if  ever  roused  to  a  maddened  discontent  with 
their  lot,  and  a  consciousness  of  their  power.  Thus  the 
daily  precepts  of  slavery, — obedience,  submission  and 
reverence  for  the  white  man, — must  not  be  dissipated  by 
public  discussions  in  which  the  rightfulness  of  slavery  was 
questioned  and  the  glories  of  freedom  held  up  before  the 
eyes  of  the  wondering  blacks.  San  Domingo  sent  its 
warnings,  the  horrors  of  the  Nat  Turner  Insurrection  were 
still  fresh  in  the  minds  of  men,  and  so  the  imperilled  slave 
holders  denounced  as  the  enemies  of  their  race  white  men 
who  indulged  in  academic  discussions  as  to  the  advantages 
of  emancipation. 

The  foregoing  were  some  of  the  causes  arising  within  the 
state  which  served  to  discourage  public  discussions  with 
respect  to  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  to  invest  with 
unnatural  heat  and  bitterness  the  sentiments  of  those  who 
nevertheless  essayed  the  task. 

From  beyond  came  movements  and  voices  even  more 
destructive  of  the  spirit  of  free  discussion  and  which  lent 
to  the  reactionary  elements  in  the  state  an  advantage 
which  they  could  never  have  acquired  except  for  this  out 
side  interference. 

As  far  back  as  1835  John  Quincy  Adams  noted  in  his 
diary: 


178    CAUSES  FROM  WITHOUT,  WHICH  HINDERED 

"  Anti-slavery  associations  are  formed  in  this  country 
and  in  England  and  they  are  already  co-operating  in  con 
certed  agency  together.  They  have  raised  funds  to  sup 
port  and  circulate  inflammatory  newspapers  and  pamphlets 
gratuitously,  and  they  send  multitudes  of  them  into  the 
Southern  country  into  the  midst  of  swarms  of  slaves."1 

In  the  same  year  there  assembled  in  Faneuil  Hall  what 
the  biographers  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison  called  "the 
social,  political,  religious  and  intellectual  elite  of  Boston, " 
who,  under  the  leadership  of  Theodore  Lyman,  Jr.,  Abbott 
Lawrence,  Peleg  Sprague,  and  Harrison  Gray  Otis  adopted 
resolutions  denouncing  the  Northern  Abolitionists  for  seek 
ing  by  their  inflammatory  publications  "to  scatter  among 
our  Southern  brethren  fire-brands,  arrows,  and  death," 
and  pledging  the  meeting  to  support  all  constitutional  laws 
for  the  suppression  of  all  publications,  "the  natural  and 
direct  tendency  of  which  is  to  incite  the  slaves  of  the  South 
to  revolt."2 

Margaret  Mercer,  of  Maryland,  whose  devotion  to  the 
cause  of  negro  emancipation  was  well  attested  by  her  act  in 
manumitting  her  own  slaves,  as  well  as  in  her  life  of  service 
devoted  largely  to  their  interests,  writing  to  Gerrit  Smith, 
laments  the  incendiary  appeals  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison 
and  the  direful  forebodings  which  they  aroused  among  the 
Southern  people  especially  in  the  imaginations  of  the 
women.  She  says: 

"For  while  the  well-disposed  and  faithful  servants  of 
kind  masters  will  suffer  and  die  with  the  whites  in  a  general 
insurrection,  the  lawless  and  vicious  will  have  in  their 
power  to  massacre  men,  women  and  children  in  their  sleep. 

1  Adams's  Diary,  August  11,  1835.  Quoted  in  Life  of  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  I,  p.  487. 

^William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  I,  p.  495. 


VIEWS  OF  ADAMS  179 

This  is  my  apology  for  feeling  and  expressing  the  deepest 
indignation  against  the  man  who  dares  to  throw  the  fire 
brand  into  the  powder  magazine  while  all  are  asleep  and 
stands  himself  at  a  distance  to  see  the  mangled  victims  of 
his  barbarous  fury.  I  pray  you,  dear  sir,  in  the  strength 
of  your  benevolence  to  conceive  the  state  of  families  living 
remote  from  assistance  in  the  country.  Suppose,  as  I  have 
often  witnessed,  an  alarm  of  insurrection;  think  of  the 
mother  of  a  family  startled  from  her  sleep  by  some  unusual 
noise  and  seized  with  a  horrid  apprehension  of  the  scene 
which  may  await  her  in  a  few  moments."  l 

Rev.  Nehemiah  Adams,  of  Boston,  who  visited  Vir 
ginia  and  the  South  in  1854,  published  the  results  of  his 
observations,  from  which  "we  take  the  following  extracts. 

After  describing  the  activities  of  the  Northern  Anti- 
slavery  Societies  in  scattering  among  the  Southern  negroes 
publications  and  pictures  tending  to  stimulate  slave  insur 
rections  and  to  inculcate  ideas  of  racial  equality,  Dr. 
Adams  writes : 

"When  these  amalgamation  pictures  were  discovered, 
husbands  and  fathers  at  the  South  felt  that  whatever  might 
be  true  of  slavery  as  a  system,  self-defense,  the  protection 
of  their  households  against  servile  insurrection,  was  their 
first  duty.  Who  can  wonder  that  they  broke  into  the 
post-office  and  seized  and  burned  abolition  papers;  indeed 
no  excesses  are  surprising  in  view  of  the  perils  to  which  they 
saw  themselves  exposed/'2 

Again  he  writes:  "They  seem  to  be  living  in  a  state  of 
self-defense,  of  self-preservation  against  the  North."3 

"As  Northern  zeal  has  promulgated  bolder  sentiments 

^Memoir  of  Margaret  Mercer,  Morris,  p.  126. 
*A  South  Side  View  of  Slavery,  Adams,  p.  108. 
3Idem,  p.  108. 


180  VIEWS  OF  LUNT 

with  regard  to  the  right  and  duty  of  slaves  to  steal,  burn, 
and  kill,  in  effecting  their  liberty,  the  South  has  intrenched 
itself  by  more  vigorous  laws  and  customs.  .  .  .  Nothing 
forces  itself  more  constantly  upon  the  thoughts  of  a  North 
erner  at  the  South  who  looks  into  the  history  and  present 
state  of  slavery,  than  the  vast  injury  which  has  resulted 
from  Northern  interference."1 

In  his  message  to  Congress,  December,  1860,  Pres 
ident  Buchanan  writes: 

"The  incessant  and  violent  agitation  of  the  slavery 
question  through  the  North  for  the  last  quarter  of  a  cen 
tury  has  at  last  produced  its  malign  influence  on  the  slaves 
and  inspired  them  with  vague  notions  of  freedom.  Hence 
a  sense  of  security  no  longer  exists  around  the  family  altar. 
The  feeling  of  peace  at  home  has  given  place  to  appre 
hension  of  servile  insurrection.  Many  a  matron  through 
out  the  South  retires  at  night  in  dread  of  what  may  befall 
herself  and  children  before  the  morning.'' 

Mr.  George  Lunt,  of  Boston,  in  his  work,  The  Origin  of 
the  Late  War,  writes : 

"  It  thus  appears  that  an  active  and  alarming  system  of 
aggression  against  the  South  was  in  operation  at  the  North 
thirty  years  ago,  threatening  to  excite  servile  insurrection, 
to  imperil  union,  to  stir  up  civil  war.  This  fact  rests  upon 
testimony  which  cannot  but  be  considered  impartial  and 
conclusive."2 

Again  the  same  author,  referring  to  the  attempt  of  John 
Brown  and  his  associates,  writes: 

"  Nothing  was  here  wanting  to  insure  a  more  widespread 
scene  of  horror  and  desolation  than  the  world  perhaps  had 
ever  before  witnessed,  except  a  totally  different  relation 

lldem,  p.  110. 

2The  Origin  of  the  Late  War,  Lunt,  p.  104. 


VIEWS  OF  BURGESS  181 

between  the  masters  and  their  servants  in  the  South  than 
that  falsely  imagined  by  the  conspirators  and  by  those  in 
sympathy  with  them  either  before  or  after  the  fact."1 

Professor  John  W.  Burgess,  of  Columbia  University,  in 
his  work,  The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  has  por 
trayed  the  disastrous  effects  upon  the  sentiment  in  favor 
of  emancipation  in  various  parts  of  the  South,  occasioned 
by  the  virulence  of  these  agitators  and  above  all  by  the 
attempt  of  John  Brown  and  his  followers  to  precipitate 
servile  insurrection. 

"If  the  whole  thing,"  writes  Professor  Burgess,  "both  as 
to  time,  methods,  and  results,  had  been  planned  by  his 
Satanic  Majesty  himself,  it  could  not  have  succeeded  better 
in  setting  the  sound  conservative  movements  of  the  age  at 
naught,  and  in  creating  a  state  of  feeling  which  offered  the 
most  capital  opportunities  for  the  triumph  of  political  in 
sincerity,  radicalism  and  rascality  over  their  opposites. 
No  man  who  is  acquainted  with  the  change  of  feeling 
which  occurred  in  the  South  between  the  16th  of  October 
1859  and  the  16th  day  of  November  of  the  same  year  can 
regard  the  Harper's  Ferry  villainy  as  any  other  than  one  of 
the  chiefest  crimes  of  our  history.  It  established  and  re 
established  the  control  of  the  great  radical  slaveholders 
over  the  non-slaveholders, — the  little  slaveholders,  and  the 
more  liberal  of  the  large  slaveholders,  which  had  already 
begun  to  be  loosened."2 

Professor  Burgess  then  proceeds  to  show  the  still  more 
disastrous  effects  upon  conservative  sentiment  in  Virginia 
and  the  South  which  resulted  from  the  demonstrations  at 
the  North  on  the  day  of  John  Brown's  execution. 

"Brown  and  his  band,"  says  Professor  Burgess,  "had 

lldem,  p.  329. 

*The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  Burgess,  Vol.  I,  p.  36. 


182  VIEWS   OF   BURGESS 

murdered  five  men  and  wounded  some  eight  or  ten  more  in 
their  criminal  movement  at  Harper's  Ferry.  .  .  .  Add  to 
this  the  consideration  that  Brown  certainly  intended  the 
wholesale  massacre  of  the  whites  by  the  blacks  in  case  that 
should  be  found  necessary  to  effect  his  purposes  and  it  was 
certainly  natural  that  the  tolling  of  the  church  bells,  the 
holding  of  prayer-meetings  for  the  soul  of  John  Brown,  the 
draping  of  houses,  the  half-masting  of  flags,  &c.,  in  many 
parts  of  the  North  should  appear  to  the  people  of  the  South 
to  be  evidences  of  a  wickedness  which  knew  no  bounds 
and  which  was  bent  upon  the  destruction  of  the  South  by 
any  means  necessary  to  accomplish  the  result.  .  .  .  Es 
pecially  did  terror  and  bitterness  take  possession  of  the 
hearts  of  the  women  of  the  South,  who  saw  in  slave  insur 
rection  not  only  destruction  and  death,  but  that  which  to 
feminine  virtue  is  a  thousand  times  worse  than  the  most 
terrible  death. 

"From  the  Harper's  Ferry  outrage  onward  the  con 
viction  grew  among  all  classes  that  the  white  men  of  the 
South  must  stand  together  and  must  harmonize  all  internal 
differences  in  the  presence  of  the  mortal  peril  with  which 
as  a  race  they  believed  themselves  threatened.  Sound 
development  in  thought  and  feeling  was  arrested,  the 
follies  and  hatreds  born  of  fear  and  resentment  now  as 
sumed  the  places  born  of  common  sense  and  common 
kindliness."1 

But,  despite  conflicts  within  and  assaults  from  without, 
it  must  not  be  concluded  that  the  people  of  Virginia  had 
entirely  abandoned  the  right  of  free  discussion  in  regard 
to  slavery,  nor  forfeited  their  well-earned  reputation  for 
conservatism  and  self-poise.  There  were  still,  as  we  have 
seen,  many  of  her  foremost  men,  who  were  frank  to  deplore 
the  existence  of  the  institution  and  who  had  never  sur 
rendered  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  that  the  day  of  abolition 
would  surely  dawn.  Neither  did  the  outrage  at  Harper's 

lThe  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  Burgess,  Vol.  I,  pp.  42-44. 


VIRGINIA'S  POSITION  IN  ELECTION  OF   1860  183 

Ferry  with  all  its  sinister  circumstances,  nor  the  triumph 
of  sectionalism  in  the  National  elections  of  1860,  drive  the 
state  from  its  position  of  sanity  and  conservatism.  Virginia 
was  one  of  three  commonwealths  in  that  momentous  elec 
tion  to  cast  her  electoral  vote  for  the  Union  candidates, 
Bell  and  Everett,  standing  on  the  simple  platform — the 
preservation  of  the  Union,  the  supremacy  of  the  constitu 
tion  and  the  enforcement  of  the  laws. 

The  foregoing  recitals  will  serve  to  present  the  almost 
insuperable  difficulties  with  which  emancipation  in  Virginia 
was  invested  during  the  period  just  antedating  the  Civil 
War.  That  her  people  took  counsel  of  their  fears,  rather 
than  their  hopes,  may  be  admitted.  But  for  this  attitude 
who  shall  arraign  them? 

Abraham  Lincoln,  speaking  at  Peoria,  111.,  October 
16th,  1854,  said: 

"When  Southern  people  tell  us  that  they  are  no  more 
responsible  for  the  origin  of  slavery  than  we  are,  I  acknowl 
edge  the  fact.  When  it  is  said  that  the  institution  exists 
and  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  get  rid  of  it  in  any  satis 
factory  way,  I  can  understand  and  appreciate  the  saying. 
I  surely  will  not  blame  them  for  not  doing  what  I  should 
not  know  how  to  do  myself.  If  all  earthly  power  were 
given  me,  I  should  not  know  what  to  do  as  to  the  existing 
institution.  My  first  impulse  would  be  to  free  all  the 
slaves,  and  send  them  to  Liberia — their  native  land.  But 
a  moment's  reflection  would  convince  me  that  whatever 
of  high  hope  (as  I  think  there  is)  there  may  be  in  this  in 
the  long  run,  its  sudden  execution  is  impossible.  If  they 
were  all  landed  there  in  a  day  they  would  all  perish  in  the 
next  ten  days;  and  there  are  not  surplus  shipping  and 
surplus  money  enough  in  the  world  to  carry  them  there 
in  many  times  ten  days.  What  then?  Free  them  all 
and  keep  them  among  us  as  underlings?  Is  it  quite 
certain  that  this  betters  their  condition?  I  think  I  would 


184     LINCOLN'S  ESTIMATE  OF  THE  DIFFICULTIES 

not  hold  one  in  slavery  at  any  rate;  yet  the  point  is  not 
clear  enough  to  me  to  denounce  people  upon.  What 
next?  Free  them  and  make  them  politically  and  socially 
our  equals?  My  own  feelings  will  not  admit  of  this;  and 
if  mine  would,  we  well  know  that  those  of  the  great  mass 
of  white  people  will  not.  Whether  this  feeling  accords 
with  justice  and  sound  judgment  is  not  the  sole  question, 
if  indeed,  it  is  any  part  of  it.  A  universal  feeling  whether 
well  or  ill  founded  cannot  be  safely  disregarded.  We 
cannot  then  make  them  equals.  It  does  seem  to  me  that 
systems  of  gradual  emancipation  might  be  adopted;  but 
for  their  tardiness  irt  this  I  will  not  undertake  to  judge 
our  brethren  of  the  South/'1 

"  If  all  earthly  power  were  given  me,  I  should  not  know 
what  to  do  as  to  the  existing  institution!"  Such  was  the 
frank  avowal  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Nearly  a  half  century  later,  Charles  Francis  Adams,  the 
grandson  of  the  "  Old  Man  Eloquent,"  and  himself  a  veteran 
of  the  Union  Army,  wrote : 

"The  existence  of  an  uneradicable  and  insurmountable 
race  difference  is  indisputable.  The  white  man  and  the 
black  man  cannot  flourish  together,  the  latter  being  con 
siderable  in  number,  under  the  same  system  of  government. 
.  .  .  The  negro  squats  at  our  hearthstone.  We  can 
neither  assimilate  nor  expel  him."2 

We  need  not  yield  completely  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  per 
plexity,  nor  to  Mr.  Adams's  despair  in  acknowledging  the 
gravity  of  the  situation  which  confronted  the  people  of 
Virginia  and  the  almost  insuperable  difficulties  which 
attended  its  right  solution. 

^Lincoln-Douglass  Debates,   p.   74.    See  also  Abraham  Lincoln, 
Letters,  Speeches  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H.,  Vol.  I,  p.  187. 
^Century  Magazine,  March,  1906,  p.  106. 


XXVI 

THE  STATUS  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY  REGARDING 

SLAVERY  AT  THE  TIME  VIRGINIA  SECEDED 

FROM  THE  UNION 

IN  considering  the  status  of  the  controversy  with 
respect  to  slavery  just  prior  to  the  Civil  War,  and  whether 
Virginia  in  seceding  was  actuated  by  a  desire  to  extend 
or  perpetuate  the  institution,  it  will  assist  to  a  clearer 
understanding  if  we  present  in  detail  the  several  phases 
over  which  conflicts  had  arisen,  and  the  parties  to  the  same. 

The  right  and  obligation  of  the  Federal  Government  to 
prevent,  by  legislation,  slaveholders  from  emigrating  into 
the  territories  with  their  slaves;  the  duty  of  the  Federal 
Government  to  provide  through  its  officials  for  the  capture 
and  return  to  their  owners  of  fugitive  slaves;  and  the 
existence  or  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Southern  States — 
these  constituted  the  three  principal  subjects  of  discussion 
and  points  of  conflict. 

Coupled  with  this  three-fold  aspect  of  the  problem, 
Virginia  was  confronted  by  four  factors,  more  or  less 
potential  in  their  relation  to  the  subject — the  Federal 
Government,  the  Republican  Party,  certain  of  the  Northern 
States,  and  the  Abolitionists. 

With  respect  to  the  Federal  Government,  neither  Vir 
ginia  nor  her  slaveholders  could  lodge  any  complaint. 

The  compromise  measures  of  1850  had  accorded  slave 
holders  the  right  to  carry  their  slaves  into  the  territories 
of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  (which  embraced  the  present 

185 


186  ATTITUDE  OF  REPUBLICAN   PARTY 

states  of  Nevada,  Utah,  a  portion  of  Colorado,  and  the 
present  territories  of  Arizona  and  New  Mexico);  while 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  enacted  in  1854,  repealed  the 
restrictions  imposed  by  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

Independent  of  these  measures  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  had,  in  1857,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case, 
decided  that  slaveholders  possessed  the  right  under  the 
constitution,  to  carry  their  slaves  into  the  territories,  and 
that  Congress  could  not  deprive  them  of  it.  In  like 
manner,  the  Federal  Government  had  enacted  a  fugitive 
slave  law  with  most  efficient  provisions  for  its  enforcement 
by  Federal  officials,  and,  finally,  the  continued  existence 
of  slavery  in  Virginia  found  a  sure  defense  from  illegal 
assaults  in  the  Federal  Constitution  and  the  power  and 
obligation  of  the  National  Government  to  maintain  its 
provisions. 

With  respect  to  the  attitude  of  the  Republican  Party, 
the  situation  was  not  so  simple.  The  Republican  Party 
was  organized  in  1854  to  maintain  the  tenet  that  Congress 
had  the  right,  as  it  was  its  duty,  to  exclude  slave  owners 
with  their  slaves  from  the  territories.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  three  years  later  decided  that 
Congress  possessed  no  such  power,  yet  in  its  platform 
of  1860  the  Republican  Party  reasserted  its  position  and 
hence  advanced  the  more  portentous  claim  that  Congress 
had  a  right  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  in  disregard  of 
the  mandates  of  the  highest  court  of  the  Republic.  It 
must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Republican  Party 
was  sectional  in  its  origin,  membership  and  spirit.  Even 
its  National  conventions  were  composed  of  representatives 
gathered  practically  from  only  one  of  the  two  great  divisions 
of  the  Union.  Its  nominees  for  President  and  Vice- 
President  in  1856  and  1860  were  both  taken  from  the  same 


SLAVEHOLDERS'  RIGHTS   IN  TERRITORIES       187 

section.  Electoral  tickets  bearing  the  names  of  its  candi 
dates  were  presented  for  the  suffrages  of  the  people  only 
in  the  Northern  and  Border  States ;  and,  finally,  by  electoral 
votes  coming  exclusively  from  the  North,  its  candidates 
were  elected,  though  the  majority  in  favor  of  their  op 
ponents  aggregated  nearly  a  million  of  the  popular  suffrage. 
These  conditions  may  well  have  aroused  the  conviction 
that  the  rights  and  interests  of  Virginia  and  the  South 
would  receive  scant  recognition  at  the  hands  of  the  in 
coming  administration,  yet  the  fact  remains  that  before 
the  date  of  Virginia's  secession,  the  Republican  Party 
had,  by  legislative  enactments  and  official  pledges,  given 
proof  of  its  purpose  to  protect  slaveholders  in  every  right 
previously  established  by  the  laws  of  Congress  and  the 
decisions  of  the  Federal  Courts. 

It  is  difficult  at  this  distance  from  the  event  to  appreciate 
how  the  question  of  the  right  of  slaveholders  to  introduce 
slaves  into  the  territories  could  have  been  the  subject  of 
such  profound  and  peace-destroying  controversy.  That 
few  slaves  would  ever  be  carried  into  the  territories  was 
a  conclusion  easily  deducible  from  the  character  of  slave 
labor,  and  the  climatic  and  soil  conditions  of  most  of  the 
Western  prairies — especially  after  Southern  California, 
which  would  have  furnished  them  a  congenial  home,  had 
been  admitted  into  the  Union  as  part  of  a  free  state. 

In  like  manner  while  we  may  appreciate  the  position  of 
slaveholders  who  insisted  upon  their  constitutional  right 
to  carry  slaves  into  the  territories,  though  they  might 
never  expect  to  exercise  the  privilege,  yet  it  is  difficult  to 
realize  the  reasonableness  of  objection  when  coming  from 
friends  of  emancipation  not  themselves  citizens  of  the 
locality  which  was  thus  to  be  burdened.  The  problem  of 
emancipation  was  largely  a  question  of  the  relative  numbers 


188  EFFECTS  OF  DISPERSING  SLAVES 

of  whites  and  blacks  in  any  given  state.  With  few  blacks 
and  many  whites,  there  was  no  problem  worthy  of  the 
name.  With  many  blacks  and  few  whites,  the  problem 
assumed  its  maximum  of  difficulty  and  danger.  Every 
slave,  therefore,  who  went  from  the  congested  slave  centres 
of  the  South  to  the  Western  prairies  not  only  ameliorated 
his  own  condition  and  enhanced  his  hopes  of  emancipa 
tion,  but,  in  like  manner,  augmented  the  chances  of  im 
provement  and  ultimate  freedom  to  those  he  left  behind. 
Mr.  Jefferson  had,  as  far  back  as  1820,  crystallized  the 
thought  in  terms  so  clear  and  reasonable  that  it  seems 
difficult  to  controvert. 

"Of  one  thing  I  am  certain,"  wrote  Mr.  Jefferson,  "that 
as  the  passage  of  slaves  from  one  state  to  another  would 
not  make  a  slave  of  a  single  human  being  who  would  not 
be  so  without  it,  so  their  diffusion  over  a  greater  surface 
would  make  them  individually  happier  and  proportion 
ately  facilitate  the  accomplishment  of  their  emancipation  by 
dividing  the  burden  upon  a  greater  number  of  coadjutors."1 

The  force  of  these  observations  will  still  further  appear 
when  we  recall  that  slavery  might  be  abolished  upon  the 
adoption  by  a  territory  of  its  constitution  preliminary  to 
statehood,  or  the  new  state  might  at  any  time  in  the 
future  so  decree — a  result  most  probable  because  of  the 
small  number  of  slaves  and  the  ever  increasing  white 
population  within  its  borders. 

Mr.  Seward  in  a  speech  before  the  United  States  Senate, 
in  the  winter  of  1861,  pointed  out  that  in  the  decade  during 
which  the  territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  had  been 
open  to  slavery,  only  twenty-four  slaves  had  been  carried 
into  that  vast  dominion.2 

Writings  of  Jefferson,  Ford,  Vol.  X,  p.  159. 
'Life  of  W.  H.  Seward,  Lathrop,  p.  220. 


CONGRESS  ORGANIZES  TERRITORIES  189 

"The  whole  controversy,"  says  Mr.  Elaine,  "over  the 
territories,  as  remarked  by  a  witty  representative  from 
the  South,  related  to  an  imaginary  negro  in  an  impossible 
place/'1 

But  despite  these  considerations,  an  acrimonious  con 
troversy  had  continued  with  growing  bitterness  for  years. 
The  Republican  Party  had  at  length  been  organized  to 
maintain  the  tenet  that  Congress  could  and  must  exclude 
slaves  from  the  territories;  and,  finally,  its  candidates  for 
President  and  Vice-President  had  been  elected  to  office. 
By  the  withdrawal  from  Congress  of  the  Senators  and 
Representatives  from  the  Cotton  States,  the  party  found 
itself  in  January,  1861,  controlling  both  branches  of  the 
National  Legislature.  Despite,  however,  the  history  and 
platform  of  the  party,  statutes  were  passed  organizing 
the  territories  of  Colorado,  Dakota  and  Nevada,  without 
any  provision  prohibiting  slavery  therein.  Thus  months 
before  the  date  of  Virginia's  secession,  the  Republican 
Party  gave  this  unequivocal  assurance  of  its  purpose  to 
accord  slaveholders  the  right  to  carry  slaves  into  the 
territories. 

The  Hon.  James  G.  Blaine,  writing  twenty-five  years 
after  the  happening,  thus  characterizes  the  action  of  his 
party: 

"When  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  repealed,  and  the 
territories  of  the  United  States  north  of  the  line  36  degrees, 
30  minutes  were  left  without  slavery  inhibition  or  restriction, 
the  agitation  began  which  ended  in  the  overthrow  of  the 
Democratic  Party  and  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the 
Presidency  of  the  United  States.  It  will,  therefore,  always 
remain  as  one  of  the  singular  contradictions  in  the  political 
history  of  the  country,  that  after  seven  years  of  almost 

twenty  Years  of  Congress,  Blaine,  Vol.  I,  p.  272. 


190      REPUBLICANS  AND  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW 

exclusive  agitation  on  this  question,  the  Republicans, 
the  first  time  they  had  the  power  as  a  distinctive  political 
organization,  to  enforce  the  cardinal  article  of  their  political 
creed,  quietly  and  unanimously  abandoned  it.  And  they 
abandoned  it  without  a  word  of  explanation."1 

Mr.  Blaine,  in  asserting  that  the  Republican  Party 
"unanimously  abandoned"  this  cardinal  article  of  its 
political  creed,  probably  overstates  the  case.  There  were 
thousands  of  the  party,  and  many  of  its  foremost 
leaders,  who  had  not  surrendered  their  contention.  At 
all  events,  the  abandonment  had  not  been  made  in  such 
an  authoritative  and  formal  way  as  to  commend  itself  to 
men  yearning  for  peace  and  desiring  an  end  of  the  con 
troversy  over  the  territories.  This  action,  however,  of 
the  Republican  Congress,  in  organizing  the  territories  of 
Colorado,  Dakota  and  Nevada  without  prohibitions  as  to 
slavery,  constituted  such  a  recognition  of  the  constitu 
tional  rights  of  the  slaveholders  and  a  determination  to 
abide  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  to  render 
baseless  the  charge  that  Virginia  seceded  in  order  to 
establish  the  right  of  her  citizens  to  carry  their  slaves 
into  the  territories.  As  we  shall  hereafter  see,  Virginia 
was  willing  to  re-enact  the  Missouri  Compromise;  make  it 
a  part  of  the  constitution  and  thus  forever  exclude  slavery 
from  all  the  territory  north  of  the  historic  line  estab 
lished  by  that  settlement. 

The  position  of  the  Republican  Party,  with  reference  to 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  presented  some  striking  contra 
dictions.  Thus,  in  those  Northern  States  where  statutes 
had  been  enacted  to  nullify  the  law,  the  dominant  political 
forces  constituted  the  controlling  element  in  the  member- 

lldem,  p.  270. 


ATTITUDE  OF  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  191 

ship  of  the  party;  yet  the  party  itself,  in  its  national  plat 
form,  demanded  neither  the  repeal  nor  amendment  of 
the  Federal  statute.  Again,  there  were  men,  prominent 
in  its  counsels,  who,  like  Salmon  P.  Chase,  frankly  acknowl 
edged  that  the  provision  of  the  constitution  requiring  the 
return  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  the  statute  of  the  Federal 
Government  carrying  this  clause  into  effect,  would  not 
be  respected  by  one  great  element  of  the  party  and  of  the 
Northern  people.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Lincoln,  who 
defeated  him  for  the  nomination  to  the  Presidency,  had 
counselled  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  con 
stitution  and  the  law.  Time  and  again  he  pointed  out 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  citizens,  and  above  all  of  public 
officials,  to  observe  the  obligations  of  the  constitution 
with  respect  to  this  matter.  "  Stand  with  the  Abolitionist 
in  restoring  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  stand  against 
him  when  he  attempts  to  repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law/' 
was  his  declaration  at  Peoria,  Illinois,  October  16th,  1858. 1 
While  a  member  of  Congress,  Mr.  Lincoln  had,  on  the 
16th  of  January,  1849,  introduced  a  bill  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  with  the  consent  of 
its  voters  and  with  compensation  to  the  slaveholders. 
The  fifth  section  of  this  bill  provided : 

"The  municipal  authorities  of  Washington  and  George 
town,  within  their  respective  jurisdictional  limits,  are 
hereby  empowered  and  required  to  provide  active  and 
efficient  means  to  arrest  and  deliver  up  to  their  owners  all 
fugitive  slaves  escaping  into  said  district.7'2 

It  was  because  of  the  authorship  of  this  proposed  Fugitive 

1Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  I,  p.  202. 

2 Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H.; 
Vol.  I,  p.  148. 


192  ATTITUDE   OF   PRESIDENT   LINCOLN 

Slave  Law,  that,  upon  his  nomination  to  the  Presidency, 
Wendell  Philips  denounced  him,  through  the  columns 
of  The  Liberator,  as  "the  Slave  Hound  of  Illinois."1 

In  his  inaugural  address,  after  alluding  to  what  he  terms 
"the  plainly  written"  clause  of  the  constitution  relating 
to  fugitive  slaves,  he  declared: 

"It  is  scarcely  questioned  that  this  provision  was  in 
tended  by  those  who  made  it  for  the  reclaiming  of  what 
we  call  'fugitive  slaves'  and  the  intention  of  the  law  giver 
is  the  law.  All  members  of  Congress  swear  their  support 
to  the  whole  constitution — to  this  provision  as  much  as 
any  other.  To  the  proposition  then  that  slaves  whose 
cases  come  within  the  terms  of  this  clause  'shall  be  de 
livered  up'  their  oaths  are  unanimous.  .  .  . 

"  There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  whether  this  clause 
should  be  enforced  by  National  or  by  state  authority;  but 
surely  that  difference  is  not  a  very  material  one.  If  the 
slave  is  to  be  surrendered,  it  can  be  of  little  consequence 
to  him  or  to  others  by  which  authority  it  is  done.  And 
should  any  one,  in  any  case,  be  content  that  his  oath 
should  go  unkept  on  a  merely  unsubstantial  controversy 
as  to  how  it  shall  be  kept?"2 

William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  503. 
^Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Vol.  VI,  p,  6, 


XXVII 

STATUS  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY  REGARDING  SLAVERY, 

AT  THE  TIME  VIRGINIA  SECEDED  FROM 

THE  UNION    (Concluded) 

WITH  respect  to  the  institution  of  slavery,  itself,  in 
the  Southern  States,  the  position  of  the  Republican  Party, 
as  a  party,  was  even  more  reassuring.  The  platform  of  the 
party,  upon  which  Mr.  Lincoln  was  elected  President, 
gave  the  most  explicit  assurance  of  the  purpose  of  the  incom 
ing  Administration  to  refrain  from  any  interference  with 
slavery,  in  the  states  where  it  was  recognized  by  law.  "  The 
maintenance  inviolate/7  declared  that  platform,  "of  the 
rights  of  the  states,  and  especially  of  each  state,  to  order 
and  control  its  own  domestic  institutions,  according  to  its 
own  judgment  exclusively,  is  essential  to  the  balance  of 
power  on  which  the  perfection  and  endurance  of  our  polit 
ical  fabric  depend.'71 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  nominated  chiefly  because  of  his  con 
servative  position  with  respect  to  slavery,  over  his  more 
conspicuous  opponents,  Seward  and  Chase,  who  were 
defeated  because  of  their  more  radical  anti-slavery  utter 
ances. 

While  never  concealing  his  strong  antipathy  to  the  insti 
tution,  Mr.  Lincoln  always  declared  his  regard  for  the 
constitutional  rights  of  slaveholders,  in  the  states  where 
slavery  existed.  Time  and  again,  he  said,  "  I  have  no  pur- 


Platform  of  National   Republican  Party,  Chicago  Con 
vention,  May,  1860. 

193 


194  REPUBLICAN  PARTY  AND  SLAVERY 

pose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  institution 
of  slavery  in  the  states  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no 
lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so."1 

After  his  election,  Mr.  Lincoln,  under  date  of  December 
22,  1860,  wrote  to  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  "  Do  the  people 
of  the  South  really  entertain  fears  that  a  Republican  admin 
istration  would  directly  or  indirectly  interfere  with  the 
slaves,  or  with  them  about  the  slaves?  If  they  do,  I  wish 
to  assure  you,  as  once  a  friend,  and  I  still  hope  not  an 
enemy,  that  there  is  no  cause  for  such  fears."2 

The  charge  is  often  made  that,  despite  the  platform  of 
the  Republican  Party  and  the  ante-election  pledges  of  its 
candidate,  the  people  of  the  South  were  convinced  that, 
with  its  advent  to  power,  a  movement  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  would  be  inaugurated;  and  that,  because  of  this 
fear,  the  Cotton  States  seceded  from  the  Union.  No  such 
charge  can  be  made  with  respect  to  Virginia.  Over  two 
months  before  her  secession,  the  Republican  Party,  as  we 
have  seen,  acquired  control  of  both  branches  of  Congress, 
and  immediately  proceeded  to  allay  any  such  apprehen 
sions  by  the  adoption  of  resolutions  and  the  enactment  of 
laws  of  the  most  ultra  pro-slavery  type. 

In  January,  1861,  a  series  of  resolutions  was  adopted  by 
the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives,  among 
which  was  one  declaring  that  Congress  recognized, 

"  Slavery  as  now  existing  in  fifteen  of  the  United  States, 
by  the  usages  and  laws  of  those  states,  and  we  recog 
nize  no  authority,  legal  or  otherwise,  outside  of  a  state 
where  it  exists,  to  interfere  with  slaves  or  slavery  in 
such  states."3 


President  Lincoln's  Inaugural  Address,  March  4;  1861. 
^Causes  of  the  Civil  War,  Chadwick,  p.  143. 
'Lincoln  and  Slavery,  Arnold,  p.  695. 


PRO-SLAVERY  ATTITUDE  OF  CONGRESS         195 

In  February,  1861,  the  House  of  Representatives  adopted 
a  resolution  with  but  four  dissenting  votes  wherein  it  was 
declared,  "that  neither  the  Federal  Government,  nor  the 
people,  have  a  purpose  or  a  constitutional  right  to  legis 
late  upon  or  interfere  with  slavery  in  any  of  the  states  of  the 
Union." 

"  Resolved,  That  those  persons  in  the  North  who  do  not 
subscribe  to  the  foregoing  propositions  are  too  insignificant 
in  numbers  and  influence  to  excite  the  serious  attention 
or  alarm  of  any  portion  of  the  people  of  the  Republic.  "l 

Following  these  resolutions  both  Houses  of  Congress 
adopted  by  the  necessary  two-thirds  vote,  a  joint  reso 
lution  proposing  an  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution, 
as  follows : 

Article  13.  "No  amendment  shall  be  made  to  the  con 
stitution  which  shall  authorize  or  give  to  Congress  the 
power  to  abolish,  or  to  interfere  within  any  state,  with  the 
domestic  institutions  thereof,  including  that  of  persons  held 
to  labor  or  service  by  the  laws  of  said  state. " 

This  amendment  passed  the  House  of  Representatives 
February  28,  1861,  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
three  to  sixty-five,  and  the  Senate  on  the  2nd  of  March, 
1861,  by  a  vote  of  twenty-four  to  twelve.  Ohio  and  Mary 
land  promptly  ratified  this  proposed  amendment  to  the 
constitution,  but  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  brought 
the  movement  to  a  close.2 

In  his  inaugural  address,  President  Lincoln  reiterated 
his  previous  pledges  and  expressed  his  approval  of  the 
movement  to  adopt  the  amendment  to  the  constitution 

lldem,  p.  695. 

2Story  on  the  Constitution,  Story,  Vol.  II,  p.  670,  Note  2. 


196     PRO-SLAVERY  AMENDMENT  TO  CONSTITUTION 

above  referred  to.  Alluding  to  his  oft  quoted  declaration 
that  he  had  neither  the  legal  right  nor  the  inclination  to 
interfere  with  slavery  in  the  Southern  States,  he  said: 

"I  now  reiterate  these  sentiments,  and  in  doing  so  I 
only  press  upon  the  public  attention  the  most  conclusive 
evidence  of  which  the  case  is  susceptible,  that  the  property, 
peace  and  security  of  no  section  are  to  be  any  wise  en 
dangered  by  the  now  incoming  Administration. " 

Continuing,  he  said, 

"I  understand  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitu 
tion — which  amendment,  however,  I  have  not  seen — has 
passed  Congress,  to  the  effect  that  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  shall  never  interfere  with  the  domestic  institutions  of 
the  states,  including  that  of  persons  held  to  service.  To 
avoid  misconception  of  what  I  have  said,  I  depart  from  my 
purpose  not  to  speak  of  particular  amendments  so  far  as  to 
say  that,  holding  such  a  provision  to  now  be  implied  Con 
stitutional  Law,  I  have  no  objection  to  its  being  made 
expressed  and  irrevocable." 

Even  after  the  conflict  of  arms  had  occurred,  the  position 
of  the  Administration  was  reiterated  in  the  most  solemn 
form.  On  the  22nd  of  April,  1861,  Mr.  Seward,  as  Secre 
tary  of  State,  in  an  official  communication  to  Mr.  Dayton, 
Minister  to  France,  wrote : 

"The  territories  will  remain  in  all  respects  the  same, 
whether  the  revolution  shall  succeed  or  shall  fail.  The 
condition  of  slavery  in  the  several  states  will  remain  just 
the  same,  whether  it  succeed  or  fail.  .  .  .  The  rights  of 
the  states  and  the  condition  of  every  being  in  them  will 
remain  subject  to  exactly  the  same  laws  and  forms  of 
administration,  whether  the  revolution  shall  succeed  or 
whether  it  shall  fail.  In  one  case  the  states  would  be 
federally  connected  with  the  new  Confederacy;  in  the  other, 


PLEDGE  OF  CONGRESS  AS  TO  OBJECT  OF  WAR    197 

they  would,  as  now,  be  members  of  the  United  States;  but 
their  constitutions  and  laws,  customs,  habits  and  insti 
tutions,  in  either  case,  will  remain  the  same/'1 

On  the  22nd  of  July,  1861,  both  houses  of  Congress, 
with  but  few  dissenting  votes,  adopted  a  joint  resolution 
which  declared: 

"This  war  is  not  waged,  on  our  part,  in  any  spirit  of 
oppression,  nor  for  any  purpose  of  conquest  or  subjugation, 
nor  purpose  of  overthrowing  or  interfering  with  the  rights 
or  established  institutions  of  those  states;  but  to  defend 
and  maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  constitution,  and  to 
preserve  the  Union,  with  all  the  dignity,  equality  and 
rights  of  the  several  states  unimpaired;  that,  as  soon  as 
these  objects  are  accomplished,  the  war  ought  to  cease."2 

Such  were  the  attitude  of  the  Republican  Party,  the 
avowals  and  pledges  of  President  Lincoln  and  the  enact 
ments  of  Congress,  with  respect  to  slavery,  at  the  time  of 
Virginia's  secession. 

It  is  not,  however,  to  be  concluded  that  the  Republican 
Party  had  renounced  its  hostility  to  slavery.  The  pledges 
referred  to  were  simply  assurances  of  the  purpose  of  the 
Federal  administration  to  respect  the  constitutional  rights 
of  states  where  the  institution  existed,  and  of  their  slave- 
holding  citizens.  Nor  is  it  claimed  that  slavery  itself  had 
acquired,  in  Virginia,  or  elsewhere,  in  the  Union,  an  in 
definite  lease  of  life.  The  forces  which  had  destroyed 
slavery  in  other  lands  were  ever  at  work.  They  were 
dynamic,  and  gathered  ever  increasing  influence  from  the 
economic,  political  and  ethical  conditions  of  the  times. 

Care  must  be  taken  not  to  confound  the  formally  de- 

lRise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  Davis,  Vol.  I,  p.  262. 
'Joint  Resolutions  adopted  by  Congress,  July  22,  1861. 


198  REPUBLICANS  AND  ABOLITIONISTS 

clared  attitude  of  the  Republican  Party  with  that  of  the 
Abolitionists.  The  exact  position  of  many  of  the  leading 
anti-slavery  men  of  the  period  is  not  always  easy  to  deter 
mine.  Garrison  and  Phillips  were,  of  course,  Abolitionists. 
Sumner  and  Chase  might  be  classed  as  belonging  to 
either  or  both — Republicans  and  Abolitionists.  "Yet," 
says  Professor  A.  B.  Hart,  "two  such  conspicuous 
champions  of  anti-slavery  as  John  Quincy  Adams  and 
Abraham  Lincoln  always  said  that  they  were  not 
Abolitionists."1 

Alluding  to  the  extra-constitutional  measures  advocated 
by  the  Abolitionists,  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  speech  at  Quincy, 
111.,  October  13,  1858,  said: 

"If  there  be  any  man  in  the  Republican  Party  who  is 
impatient  over  the  necessity  springing  from  its  (slavery's) 
actual  presence,  and  is  impatient  of  the  constitutional 
guaranties  thrown  around  it,  and  would  act  in  disregard 
of  these,  he  too  is  misplaced,  standing  with  us.  He  will 
find  his  place  somewhere  else ;  for  we  have  a  due  regard,  so 
far  as  we  are  capable  of  understanding  them,  for  all  these 
things."2 

So  too  with  respect  to  armed  invasions  and  the  attempt 
of  John  Brown  and  his  abettors  to  precipitate  servile 
insurrection. 

Mr.  Lincoln,  in  his  speech  at  Cooper  Union,  New  York, 
February  27th,  1860,  said: 

"You  charge  that  we  stir  up  insurrections  among  your 
slaves.  We  deny  it;  and  what  is  your  proof?  Harper's 
Ferry!  John  Brown!!  John  Brown  was  no  Republican; 

^Slavery  and  Abolition,  Hart,  p.  175. 

2 Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  I.,  p.  463. 


SLAVERY  A  DOOMED  INSTITUTION  199 

and  you  have  failed  to  implicate  a  single  Republican 
in  his  Harper's  Ferry  enterprise."1  .  .  .  Continuing,  he 
said:  "John  Brown's  effort  was  peculiar.  It  was  not  a 
slave  insurrection.  It  was  an  attempt  by  white  men  to 
get  up  a  revolt  among  slaves,  in  which  the  slaves  refused 
to  participate.  In  fact,  it  was  so  absurd  that  the  slaves, 
with  all  their  ignorance,  saw  plainly  enough  it  could  not 
succeed.  That  affair,  in  its  philosophy,  corresponds  with 
the  many  attempts,  related  in  history,  at  the  assassination 
of  kings  and  emperors."2 

If  it  be  urged  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  oft-quoted  words 
uttered  before  his  nomination  for  the  Presidency,  that 
"The  Government  could  not  endure  half  slave  and  half 
free,"  were  at  war  with  his  assurances  and  that  Virginia 
was  thus  threatened  in  her  "peculiar  institution,"  yet  it 
must  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Lincoln,  time  and  again  be 
fore  his  election,  disclaimed  any  such  purpose  and  denied 
that  his  words  were  susceptible  of  any  such  construction. 

Morse,  in  his  Biography  of  Lincoln,  says:  "Again  and 
again  Mr.  Lincoln  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  he 
had  expressed  neither  'a  doctrine'  nor  an  ' invitation' ; 
nor  any  'purpose,'  nor  'policy'  whatsoever."3 

To  quote  the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  in  meeting 
the  charge  in  his  debate  with  Stephen  A.  Douglas: 

"In  the  passage  I  indicated  no  wish  or  purpose  of  my 
own.  I  simply  expressed  my  expectations.  Cannot  the 
Judge  perceive  a  distinction  between  a  purpose  and  an 
expectation?  I  have  often  expressed  an  expectation  to 
die,  but  I  have  never  expressed  a  wish  to  die."4 

1 Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  I.,  p.  607. 
2Idem,  p.  609. 

3 Abraham  Lincoln,  Morse,  p.  123. 
4 Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  p.  59. 


200  SLAVERY  A  DOOMED  INSTITUTION 

Thomas  Jefferson  and  other  Virginia  opponents  of 
slavery  had  often  made  similar  predictions.  Even  as  a 
prophecy  of  emancipation,  it  involved  no  other  suggestion 
than  that  slavery  was  an  antiquated  institution  at  war 
with  the  genius  of  our  government  and  the  spirit  of  the  age 
and  was  doomed  by  forces  world  wide  in  their  potency  to 
ultimate  extinction. 


XXVIII 

THE  ATTITUDE  OF  CERTAIN  NORTHERN  STATES 

THE  constitution  of  the  United  States  provides: 
"2.  A  person  charged  in  any  state  with  treason,  felony, 
or  other  crime,  who  shall  flee  from  justice  and  be  found 
in  another  state,  shall,  on  demand  of  the  executive  authority 
of  the  state  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up,  to  be 
removed  to  the  state  having  jurisdiction  of  the  crime. 

No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state,  under 
the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another  state,  shall,  in 
consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  dis 
charged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered 
up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor 
may  be  due."1 

The  first  of  the  foregoing  clauses  provides  for  the  return 
of  fugitives  from  justice,  and  the  second,  of  fugitive  slaves. 

The  attitude  of  certain  Northern  States  with  reference 
to  these  two  provisions  of  the  constitution  was  a  subject 
of  profound  importance  in  the  years  immediately  preceding 
the  Civil  War,  and  constituted  one  of  the  greatest  griev 
ances  of  the  people  of  the  slaveholding  states. 

At  the  time  the  constitution  was  adopted,  slavery 
existed  in  every  one  of  the  thirteen  states  except  Massa 
chusetts,  though  in  some  others  acts  had  been  passed 
providing  for  its  gradual  abolition.  It  was  deemed 
essential,  therefore,  to  the  peaceful  relations  of  the  several 

Institution  of  the  United  States,  Article  IV,  Sub-section  2. 

201 


202         ORIGIN  OF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW 

states  as  well  as  the  legal  rights  of  slaveholders  that  some 
provision  should  be  inserted  in  the  Federal  Constitution 
dealing  with  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves  as  well  as  fugitives 
from  justice.  If  a  slave  could,  by  passing  from  New 
York  into  Massachusetts,  absolve  himself  from  slavery 
with  no  remedy  for  the  master  except  the  grace  of  the 
latter  state,  in  which  the  institution  was  not  recognized, 
then  not  only  were  the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  citizens 
of  New  York  dependent  upon  the  laws  of  Massachusetts, 
but  such  conditions  would  doubtless  engender  strife  and 
reprisals  between  the  different  states  of  the  Union. 

The  necessity,  as  well  as  the  justice,  of  fugitive  slave 
laws  was  recognized  almost  contemporaneously  with  the 
introduction  of  slavery  into  this  country.  Thus,  in  the 
Article  of  Confederation  adopted  in  1643,  between  the 
colonies  of  Plymouth,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut  and 
New  Haven,  it  was  provided, 

"If  any  servant  runn  away  from  his  master  into  any 
other  of  these  Confederated  Jurisdiccons,  that  in  such  case 
upon  the  Certyficate  of  one  Magistrate  in  the  Jurisdiccon 
out  of  which  the  said  servant  fled,  or  upon  other  due 
proofe,  the  said  servant  shall  be  delivered  either  to  his 
master  or  any  other  that  pursues  and  brings  such  certyficate 
or  proofe."1 

Provisions  of  like  character  were  incorporated  in  many 
of  the  treaties  between  the  various  colonies  and  the  Indian 
tribes,  and  later  between  the  United  States  Government 
and  the  Indians. 

The  Ordinance  of  1784,  as  adopted  by  Congress,  con 
tained  no  provision  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves  escap 
ing  into  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  River,  and  as 

lPlymouth  Colony  Records,  IX,  p.  5,  and  Fugitive  Slaves,  Boston, 
1891,  McDougall,  p.  7. 


FUGITIVE  SLAVES  AND  THE   CONSTITUTION    203 

we  have  seen,  the  provision  prohibiting  slavery  therein 
had  been  stricken  out  before  its  adoption. 

On  the  16th  of  March,  1785,  Rufus  King  of  Massachu 
setts  presented  a  resolution  amending  the  Ordinance  of 
1784,  so  as  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  northwest  territory, 
which  resolution  was  referred  to  a  committee  consisting 
of  King,  William  Howell  and  William  Ellery;  the  last  two 
members  being  from  Rhode  Island. 

On  the  6th  of  April,  1785,  a  report  was  presented  from 
this  committee  to  Congress,  providing  for  an  amendment 
of  the  existing  ordinance,  so  as  to  exclude  slavery  from 
the  northwest  territory  after  the  year  1800,  "  the  resolu 
tion  to  be  an  article  of  compact"  between  the  thirteen 
original  states  and  those  created  out  of  the  territory. 
The  amendment  so  reported  also  made  provision  for  the 
return  to  their  masters  of  fugitive  slaves  escaping  into  the 
territory  from  any  of  the  thirteen  original  states.1 

No  action  was  taken  upon  this  report,  but  at  the  time 
the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  under  consideration,  July 
13th,  1787,  a  provision  was  inserted  prohibiting  slavery 
in  the  northwest  territory  along  with  a  fugitive  slave 
clause,  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  all  the  states  present.2 

The  same  year,  the  Constitutional  Convention,  in  session 
at  Philadelphia,  inserted  a  like  fugitive  slave  clause  in  the 
Federal  Constitution. 

On  the  12th  of  February,  1793,  Congress  passed  an  act 
providing  the  method  for  carrying  into  effect  the  section 
of  the  constitution  relating  to  fugitives  from  justice  and 
fugitive  slaves.  Both  subjects  are  treated  and  provided 
for  in  the  same  act.  It  passed  both  houses  of  Congress 

^History  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  American  Antiquarian  Society, 
new  series,  Vol.  V,  p.  315. 
*Idem,  p.  335. 


204  RETURN  OF  FUGITIVE  SLAVES 

by  practically  unanimous  votes — Washington  approving 
the  bill  with  his  signature. 

By  this  statute,  the  authorities  of  the  several  states 
were  charged  with  the  duty  of  executing  the  law  with 
reference  to  the  return  of  fugitives  from  justice. 

With  respect,  however,  to  fugitive  slaves,  the  authority 
and  burden  of  dealing  with  their  return  was  placed  upon 
officers  of  the  Federal  Government  as  well  as  upon  certain 
state  officials.  Despite  the  somewhat  cumbrous  character 
of  the  law,  the  return  of  fugitives  from  justice  and  of 
fugitive  slaves  was  assured,  and  little  controversy  arose 
until  some  forty  years  after  its  enactment.  But  with  the 
rise  of  the  Abolitionists  at  the  North  difficulties  in  execut 
ing  the  law  began  to  appear — especially  as  to  fugitive 
slaves. 

William  Lloyd  Garrison  began  the  publication  of  The 
Liberator  in  1831.  The  American  Anti-Slavery  Society 
was  organized  in  1833  and  soon  thereafter  the  Under 
ground  Railroad  commenced  its  operations.  Under  the 
influence  of  these  forces,  not  only  was  the  execution  of  the 
law  with  reference  to  fugitive  slaves  in  many  of  the  Northern 
States  greatly  hindered  but  the  slaves  enticed  or  escaping 
from  their  masters  became  much  more  numerous.  The 
irritating  effects  of  these  conditions  upon  Southern  slave 
holders  were  intensified  by  the  suggestion  that  the  law 
was  fairly  enforced  as  long  as  there  were  slaves  in  the 
so-called  free  states.  In  time,  however,  the  Legislatures 
of  many  of  the  Northern  States  adopted  state  laws  which 
were  undoubtedly  designed  to  defeat  the  execution  of  the 
Federal  statute,  and  thus  was  added  the  sanction  of  states 
through  their  law-making  bodies  to  the  illegal  attitude 
and  acts  of  their  citizens.  This  political  action  of  these 
states  not  only  aroused  the  indignation  of  slaveholders, 


THE  UNDERGROUND  RAILROAD  205 

but  enlisted  in  their  behalf  the  sympathies  of  their  non- 
slaveholding  fellow  citizens.  The  attitude  of  the  Abo 
litionists  and  the  action  of  the  Northern  States  above 
referred  to  were  regarded  by  the  people  of  Virginia  as 
a  violation  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  their  state,  as 
well  as  a  wanton  injury  to  the  property  interests  of  her 
slaveholding  citizens.  The  Abolitionists,  by  every  form 
of  suggestion  and  appeal,  incited  and  assisted  slaves  to 
desert  their  masters,  while  the  Underground  Railroad 
provided  increasing  facilities  for  accomplishing  the  result. 
Professor  A.  B.  Hart,  of  Harvard  University,  says: 

"  The  Underground  Railroad  was  not  a  route  but  a  net 
work;  not  an  organization,  but  a  conspiracy  of  thou 
sands  of  people  banded  together  for  the  deliberate  purpose 
of  depriving  their  Southern  neighbors  of  their  property 
and  of  defying  the  Fugitive  Slave  Laws  of  the  United 
States."1 

With  such  a  system  in  active  operation,  it  only  became 
necessary,  in  order  to  invest  the  whole  movement  with 
the  dignity  of  state  usurpation  and  wrong,  for  states  to 
enact  the  so-called  Personal  Liberty  Laws. 

^Slavery  and  Abolition,  Hart,  p.  228. 


XXIX 

THE  ATTITUDE  OF  CERTAIN  NORTHERN  STATES 
(Concluded) 

BEGINNING  in  1837,  Massachusetts  adopted  the  first  of 
the  so-called  Personal  Liberty  Laws,  which  were  followed 
by  others  of  like  import  enacted  by  Vermont,  New  York  and 
Connecticut.  The  ostensible  object  of  these  statutes  was 
to  protect  free  negroes,  but  as  no  such  laws  were  necessary 
until  the  rise  of  the  Abolitionists  and  the  operations  of 
the  Underground  Railroad,  they  were  generally  accepted 
as  efforts  on  the  part  of  these  states  to  assist  these  agencies 
and  defeat  the  clause  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  which  provided  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves. 

In  1842,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  decided 
that  so  much  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  1793  as  author 
ized  or  required  state  officials  to  assist  in  executing  the  law 
was  unconstitutional,  and  that  upon  Federal  authorities 
must  rest  the  whole  burden.1  This  decision  was  followed 
by  a  new  series  of  statutes  in  Massachusetts,  Vermont, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Rhode  Island.2 

On  the  18th  of  September,  1850,  Congress  passed  another 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  amending  the  act  of  1793  so  as  to 
charge  Federal  officials  with  the  whole  duty  of  carrying 
into  effect  the  clause  in  the  constitution  providing  for  the 
return  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  to  remedy  the  difficulties  re 
sulting  from  the  action  of  the  Abolitionists  and  the  acts 

^ee  Decision  in  Case  of  Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania,  16  Pet.  539. 
^Fugitive  Slaves,  McDougall,  p.  66. 

206 


THE  PERSONAL  LIBERTY  LAWS  207 

passed  by  certain  states  as  above  referred  to.  This  aroused 
fresh  antagonism  to  the  constitution  and  the  efforts  of 
the  Federal  Government  to  carry  the  same  into  effect. 
The  constitutionality  of  the  new  law  was  denied  and  though 
affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court,  its  execution  in  the  fore 
going  states  was  much  embarrassed  by  a  new  series  of 
state  statutes.  Laws  of  like  import,  with  like  results,  were 
also  enacted  by  Wisconsin,  Michigan,  Connecticut  and 
Maine. 

In  some  instances,  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  affirming  the  constitutionality  of  the 
statute  was  challenged  by  the  legislative  department  of 
state  governments,  and  the  right  of  the  former  tribunal  to 
fix  the  obligations  of  states  and  citizens  with  respect  to  the 
law  strenuously  denied. 

Thus,  in  Wisconsin  one  Sherman  M.  Booth  had  been 
indicted  in  the  Federal  Court  for  a  violation  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  enacted  by  Congress,  and,  after  trial  and  con 
viction,  was  sentenced  for  the  offense.  An  application  for 
a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  presented  by  Booth  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  and  his  release  prayed  for 
on  the  ground  that  the  Federal  statute  was  unconstitutional. 
The  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  took  cognizance  of  the 
case  and  discharged  the  prisoner  from  the  custody  of  the 
Federal  authorities.1 

An  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  where  the  constitutionality  of  the  Federal  statute 
was  affirmed,  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Wis 
consin  reversed  and  Booth  remanded  to  custody.2  There 
upon,  the  General  Assembly  of  Wisconsin  on  the  16th  of 

lln  re  Sherman  M.  Booth,  3rd  Wisconsin  Rep.,  p.  13. 
2Ableman  vs.  Booth  and  United  States  vs.  Booth,  21st  Howard, 
p.  506. 


208    STATE  DEFIANCE  OF  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAWS 

March,  1859,  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions  in  which,  after 
denying  the  right  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court 
to  take  cognizance  of  the  above  mentioned  case,  they 
declared : 

"That  the  government,  formed  by  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  was  not  made  the  exclusive  or  final 
judge  of  the  powers  delegated  to  itself:  but  that  as  in  all 
other  cases  of  compact  among  parties  having  no  common 
judge,  each  party  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself 
as  well  of  infractions  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of 
redress. 

"That  the  principle  and  construction  contended  for  by 
the  party  which  now  rules  in  the  councils  of  the  nation, 
that  the  General  Government  is  the  exclusive  judge  of  the 
extent  of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  stop  nothing  short  of 
despotism;  since  the  discretion  of  those  who  administer 
the  government,  and  not  the  constitution,  would  be  the 
measure  of  their  powers;  that  the  several  states  which 
formed  that  instrument  being  sovereign  and  independent 
have  the  unquestionable  right  to  judge  of  its  infraction 
and  that  a  positive  defiance  by  those  sovereignties  of  all 
unauthorized  acts  done  or  attempted  to  be  done  under  color 
of  that  instrument  is  the  right  remedy."1 

These  outspoken  and  persistent  attempts  of  great  states 
to  repudiate  their  obligations  to  the  constitution  and  to 
nullify  the  laws  of  Congress  had  a  most  reactionary  in 
fluence  upon  slaveholders  and  their  sympathizers  in  Vir 
ginia  and  the  South  and  filled  the  minds  of  thoughtful  men 
with  the  gravest  forebodings  for  the  peace  and  preser 
vation  of  the  Union. 

President  Buchanan  in  his  message  to  Congress,  Decem 
ber,  1860,  refers  to  the  action  of  the  states  in  nullifying  the 

1 Journal  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Wisconsin,  Session  1859, 
pp.  463  and  865. 


CONGRESS  ON  STATE  INTERFERENCE  209 

Fugitive  Slave  Law  enacted  by  Congress,  as  "the  most 
palpable  violation  of  constitutional  duty  which  has  yet 
been  committed." 

Governor  Banks  in  his  address  before  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts  which  assembled  on  the  first  Wednesday 
in  January,  1861,  referring  to  the  statute  enacted  in  that 
state  antagonistic  to  the  act  of  Congress  for  the  return  of 
fugitive  slaves,  and  the  consequent  imputation  which  it 
brought  upon  the  loyalty  of  Massachusetts  to  the  Union 
and  its  constitution,  said: 

"It  is  because  in  the  face  of  her  just  claims  to  high 
honor  I  do  not  love  to  hear  unjust  reproaches  passed  upon 
her  fame — that  I  say  as  I  do,  in  the  presence  of  God  and  with 
a  heart  filled  with  responsibilities  that  must  rest  upon 
every  American  citizen  in  these  distempered  times,  I  can 
not  but  regard  the  maintenance  of  a  statute,  although  it 
may  be  within  the  extremest  limits  of  constitutional 
power,  which  is  so  unnecessary  to  the  public  weal  and  so 
detrimental  to  the  public  peace  as  an  inexcusable  public 
wrong.  I  hope  by  common  consent  it  may  be  removed 
from  the  statute  book  and  such  guarantees  as  individual 
freedom  demands  be  sought  in  new  legislation/71 

Congress,  in  February,  1861,  adopted  the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Thirty-three  of  which  Thomas  Corwin  of  Ohio 
was  chairman,  which  after  reciting  "that  all  attempts  on 
the  part  of  the  Legislatures  of  any  of  the  states  to  obstruct 
or  hinder  the  recovery,"  of  fugitive  slaves,  "are  in  dero 
gation  of  the  constitution  .  .  .  and  dangerous  to  the 
peace  of  the  Union,"  resolved 

"That  the  several  states  be  respectfully  requested  to 
cause  their  statutes  to  be  revised,  with  a  view  to  ascertain 

lHistory  of  Massachusetts  in  the  Civil  War,  Schouler,  Vol.  1,  p.  6. 


210  RHODE  ISLAND  ALONE  ACCEDES 

if  any  of  them  are  in  conflict  with  or  tend  to  embarrass  or 
hinder  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  .  .  . 
for  the  delivery  up  of  persons  held  to  labour  by  the  laws  of 
any  state  and  escaping  therefrom;  and  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives  earnestly  request  that  all  enact 
ments  having  such  tendency  be  forthwith  repealed  as 
required  by  a  just  sense  of  constitutional  obligations  and  by 
a  due  regard  for  the  peace  of  the  Republic."1 

President  Lincoln  in  his  inaugural  address,  referring  to 
the  clause  of  the  constitution  providing  for  the  return  of 
fugitive  slaves,  and  the  contention  as  to  whether  the  same 
should  be  executed  by  Federal  or  state  officials,  said:  "If 
the  slave  is  to  be  surrendered,  it  can  be  of  little  consequence 
to  him  or  to  others  by  which  authority  it  is  done.  And 
should  any  one  in  any  case  be  content  that  his  oath  should 
go  unkept  on  a  merely  unsubstantial  controversy  as  to  how 
it  shall  be  kept?" 

Despite  these  considerations,  Rhode  Island  alone  repealed 
the  obnoxious  statutes,  and  great  leaders  of  the  Republican 
Party  frankly  confessed  that  the  constitution  and  the  law 
would  not  be  respected  in  certain  of  the  Northern  States. 
Salmon  P.  Chase,  speaking  in  the  Peace  Conference  at 
Washington,  in  February,  1861,  alluding  to  the  provision 
of  the  constitution  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves,  said: 
"The  people  of  the  free  states,  however,  who  believe  that 
slave-holding  is  wrong  cannot  and  will  not  aid  in  the 
reclamation,  and  the  stipulation  becomes  therefore  a  dead 
letter."2 

Of  the  Personal  Liberty  Laws  Mr.  George  Lunt  of  Boston 
in  his  work,  Origin  of  the  Late  War,  says:    "They  con 
gee   Reports   of   Thirty-second  Congress,  and  Twenty   Years  of 
Congress,  Elaine,  pp.  258-265. 

^Debates  in  Peace  Conference  Convention,  Crittenden,  p.  430. 


FUGITIVES  FROM  JUSTICE  211 

stituted  an  extreme  exemplification  of  the  broadest  claim 
to  state  sovereignty,  and  put  the  states  which  authorized 
them  in  direct  hostility  to  the  United  States.  They  were 
not  one  whit  more  defensible  than  the  Rebellion  itself  to 
which  they  had  such  a  principal  part  in  preparing  the  minds 
of  the  seceding  states."1 

Closely  associated  with  the  controversies  growing  out  of 
the  return  of  fugitive  slaves  and  the  action  of  certain 
Northern  States,  in  defeating  the  provision  of  the  consti 
tution  in  regard  thereto,  was  the  attitude  of  many  of  the 
same  states  with  respect  to  the  provision  for  the  return  of 
the  fugitives  from  justice.  A  few  notable  instances  will 
suffice  to  illustrate  the  subject  and  its  profound  influence 
in  arraying  Southern  States,  as  states,  against  certain  of 
their  Northern  sisters. 

In  1837  the  Governor  of  Georgia  made  requisition  upon 
the  Governor  of  Maine  for  the  return  to  the  former  state  of 
the  captain  of  a  ship  charged  with  aiding  and  abetting  a 
slave  to  desert  his  master.  The  Governor  of  Maine  refused 
to  comply  with  the  requisition,  alleging  that  the  laws  of  that 
state  did  not  recognize  slavery  or  the  offense  complained 
of  as  an  indictable  one.  Thereupon  the  Legislature  of 
Georgia  petitioned  Congress  to  enact  some  law  to  compel 
state  authorities  to  comply  with  this  provision  of  the 
Federal  Constitution.  No  action,  however,  was  taken  by 
Congress,  nor  was  the  slave  or  his  abductor  ever  carried 
back  to  Georgia.2 

In  1841  the  Governor  of  Virginia  made  requisition  upon 
the  Governor  of  New  York  for  the  return  of  two  men 
indicted  in  the  former  state  for  aiding  and  enticing  slaves 
to  leave  their  masters.  William  H.  Seward  was  at  that 

^Origin  of  the  Late  War,  Lunt,  p.  217. 

^Fugitive  Slaves,  Boston,  1891,  McDougall,  p.  41. 


212          NON-COMPLIANCE  WITH  CONSTITUTION 

time  Governor  of  New  York.  He  refused  to  honor  the 
requisition,  alleging  that  the  offense  for  which  the  parties 
were  indicted  was  not  one  deemed  criminal  by  the  laws  of 
New  York  or  the  nations  of  the  world.  A  long  and  peace- 
destroying  controversy  in  which  the  Legislatures  of  the  two 
states  became  involved  followed;  but  the  fugitives  were 
never  returned,  and  the  people  of  Virginia  felt  that  the 
highest  law  officer  of  a  sister  state  had  been  recreant  to  his 
obligations  to  the  Federal  Constitution  and  reckless  of  the 
rights  of  their  state. 

In  I860,  the  Governor  of  Kentucky  made  requisition 
upon  the  Governor  of  Ohio  for  the  return  to  the  former 
state  of  a  fugitive  from  justice  indicted  for  the  violation 
of  a  statute  imposing  penalties  upon  persons  aiding  slaves 
to  escape  from  their  masters.  The  Governor  of  Ohio  re 
fused  to  honor  the  requisition;  thereupon  the  State  of 
Kentucky  instituted  a  suit  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  against  the  Governor  of  Ohio,  to  compel  him 
to  comply  with  the  provision  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
above  referred  to  and  deliver  up  the  fugitive  from  justice. 

The  Governor  of  Ohio  interposed  as  a  defense  the  same 
reasons  advanced  by  Governor  Seward.  But  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  held  that  the  defense  was 
insufficient,  and  that  it  was  the  constitutional  duty  of  the 
Governor  of  Ohio  to  deliver  up  the  fugitive.  The  court 
declared:  "The  objection  made  to  the  validity  of  the 
indictment  is  altogether  untenable."1  The  court  also 
decided  that  the  suit  was  properly  instituted,  in  the  right 
forum,  and  that  the  Governor  of  Ohio  was  under  con 
stitutional  obligations  to  deliver  up  the  fugitive  to  the 
authorities  of  Kentucky,  but  that  no  judgment  could  be 

^Kentucky  against  Dennison,  24th  Howard,  p.  107. 


EFFECTS   IN   VIRGINIA  OF  NULLIFICATION       213 

entered  by  the  court  granting  the  relief  prayed  for.  Chief 
Justice  Taney,  speaking  for  the  court,  after  alluding  to 
the  fact  that  the  framers  of  the  constitution  confidently 
believed  that  "A  sense  of  justice  and  of  mutual  interest 
would  insure  a  faithful  execution  of  the  provision/'  de 
clared:  "If  the  Governor  of  Ohio  refuses  to  discharge  this 
duty  there  is  no  power  delegated  to  the  General  Govern 
ment,  either  through  the  judicial  department  or  any  other 
department,  to  use  any  coercive  means  to  compel  him."1 

This  decision  brought  home  to  the  people  of  Virginia 
the  fact  that  the  authorities  of  certain  of  the  Northern 
States  were  violating  their  obligations  under  the  Federal 
Constitution,  and  yet  the  Federal  Government  was  unable 
to  remedy  the  wrong  and  maintain  the  rights  of  the  in 
jured  commonwealths. 

These  conditions  and  the  attitude  of  the  Northern  States 
which  thus  nullified  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  undoubtedly  moved  thousands  of  Virginians  and 
other  citizens  of  the  South  to  secession.  They  refused 
to  remain  members  of  a  Union  in  which  the  rights  of 
their  states  were  thus  violated  by  their  sister  common 
wealths. 

But  the  claim  that  Virginia  seceded  in  order  to  avert 
pecuniary  loss  resulting  from  the  non-return  of  fugitive 
slaves  is  negatived  by  the  fact  that  by  such  action  she 
surrendered  all  the  benefits  from  the  Federal  Constitution 
and  statute.  In  the  Union,  some  protection  was  secured 
to  the  state  with  respect  to  the  rights  thus  menaced. 
Outside  of  the  Union,  every  such  benefit  was  lost,  and  the 
state  stood  absolutely  without  redress. 

lKentucky  against  Dennison,  24th  Howard,  p.  109. 


XXX 

THE  ABOLITIONISTS 

WE  come  now  to  consider  the  fourth  force  or  factor  with 
which  Virginia  had  to  reckon,  namely,  the  Abolitionists. 
These  constituted  a  body  of  earnest,  tireless  agitators — 
men  and  women  who  had  devoted  mind  and  heart  to  the 
work  of  destroying  slavery.  No  consideration  of  the 
maintenance  of  law,  the  national  peace,  nor  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  Union  availed  to  moderate  their  zeal  or  circum 
scribe  their  efforts.  Slavery  was  a  sin  against  God — and 
to  the  King  of  kings  they  owed  their  first  allegiance. 
To  counsels  of  moderation,  to  suggestions  of  expediency, 
to  appeals  for  law,  they  returned  the  oft  reiterated  answer 
— Delenda  est  Carthago !  The  orderly  processes  of  time — 
the  force  of  public  opinion  exerted  through  law,  rather 
than  against  law,  were  to  them  but  the  suggestions  of 
cowardice  and  a  means  for  prolonging  the  life  of  an  in 
stitution,  the  measure  of  whose  sin  cried  unto  Heaven. 
Fight  Slavery! — now  and  always — wherever  found  and 
by  every  weapon  known  to  the  wit  of  man,  was  the  burden 
of  their  message.  Keep  it  out  of  the  territories?  Yes! 
and  for  the  contest  depend  not  alone  upon  the  laws  of 
Congress;  but  send  armed  men  to  the  prairies  of  Kansas 
and  hold  the  land  against  the  slaveholders  and  their  slaves 
by  fire  and  the  sword.  Opposed  to  a  Fugitive  Slave 
Statute?  Yes! — contest  its  enactment  by  Congress  and 
defeat  its  execution  when  it  becomes  a  law.  Let  the  free 
states  nullify  this  Federal  statute  by  state  laws;  let  mobs 

214 


GARRISON  AND  PHILLIPS  215 

rescue  from  Federal  officials  the  fugitives  in  their  custody; 
and  then  cover  the  land  with  the  conspiracy  of  the  "  Under 
ground  Railroad"  by  means  of  which  the  slave  might 
pass  to  the  freedom  which  awaited  him  beyond  the  Canadian 
border. 

But  it  was  slavery  in  its  citadel — the  existence  of  the 
institution  in  the  slave  states — that  aroused  their  fiercest 
antagonism  and  rallied  their  forces  to  a  battle  which 
should  never  end  but  with  its  complete  destruction. 
From  this  body  of  militant  agitators  and  reformers,  the 
slaveholders  of  Virginia  could  expect  no  quarter,  and  the 
commonwealth  no  surcease  from  the  agitations  so  destruc 
tive  of  her  peace. 

William  Lloyd  Garrison  and  Wendell  Phillips  were  the 
foremost  leaders  of  this  great  fellowship,  and  in  no  year 
of  grace  were  their  demands  more  insistent  and  their 
assaults  more  aggressive  than  in  the  troublous  days  im 
mediately  preceding  the  Civil  War.  Amid  all  appeals 
for  the  maintenance  of  law  and  the  preservation  of  peace 
might  be  heard  their  voices  like  fire-bells  at  night,  denounc 
ing  the  Union  and  the  constitution  and  demanding  the 
immediate  abolition  of  slavery.  But  by  none  of  these 
things  was  Virginia  moved  to  secession.  As  declared  by 
Henderson,  the  English  military  critic,  "The  wildest 
threats  of  the  '  Black  Republicans/  their  loudly  expressed 
determination  in  defiance  of  the  constitution,  to  abolish 
slavery,  if  necessary,  by  the  bullet  and  the  sabre,  shook 
in  no  degree  whatever  her  loyalty  to  the  Union.7'1 

For  none  of  Virginia's  grievances  nor  those  of  her  slave 
holders  against  the  Abolitionists  was  secession  a  cure. 
Within  the  Union  and  under  the  aegis  of  the  constitution 

^Stonewall  Jackson,  Henderson,  Vol.  I,  p.  122. 


216  SECESSION   NO  PROTECTION 

was  to  be  found  her  surest  defense  against  all  their  as 
saults.  By  secession  she  would  surrender  her  interest  in 
the  territories  and  all  claim  of  right  to  introduce  slaves 
therein.  By  secession  she  would  forfeit  all  the  benefits  of 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  By  secession  she  would  lose  the 
strong  arm  of  the  National  Government  to  defend  her 
against  assaults,  whether  by  lawless  bands  or  the  legis 
lative  enactments  of  hostile  states.  Even  with  respect  to 
servile  insurrections  her  withdrawal  from  the  Union  would 
in  no  way  abate  the  danger  but  only  lessen  her  power  to 
cope  with  the  problem.  John  Brown  and  his  band  were 
captured  by  United  States  soldiers  and  the  flag  of  the 
Union  carried  protection  to  the  inmates  of  every  lonely 
manor  house  and  cabin  throughout  her  borders,  whether 
menaced  by  the  slaves  themselves  or  the  emissaries  of 
those  who  plotted  against  her  peace.  Of  all  these  facts 
the  Abolitionists  had  the  profoundest  appreciation.  Hence 
for  years  they  advocated  disunion  as  a  condition  precedent 
to  the  attainment  of  their  great  end — the  abolition  of 
slavery. 


XXXI 

THE  ABOLITIONISTS  AND  DISUNION 

THE  disunion  sentiments  and  efforts  of  the  Abolitionists 
may  be  traced  through  the  declarations  of  their  leaders 
and  the  platforms  of  their  societies,  enunciated  from  time 
to  time,  during  a  long  series  of  years  antedating  the  Civil 
War.  Thus  in  January,  1843,  the  Massachusetts  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  adopted  the  following  resolution: 

"  That  the  compact  which  exists  between  the  North  and 
the  South  is  a  covenant  with  Death  and  an  agreement  with 
Hell — involving  both  parties  in  atrocious  criminality,  and 
should  be  immediately  annulled/'1 

These  sentiments  were  affirmed  and  reiterated  by  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society  at  its  tenth  anniversary 
meeting  in  New  York  City,  May,  1844,  where  among 
other  declarations  the  Federal  Constitution  was  denounced 
as  "  a  covenant  with  Death  and  an  agreement  with  Hell/' 
and  the  motto  adopted  "  No  Union  with  Slaveholders."2 

In  1854,  William  Lloyd  Garrison  declared,  "There  is 
but  one  honest,  straightforward  course  to  pursue  if  we 
would  see  the  slave  power  overthrown — the  Union  must 
be  dissolved."3  And  Wendell  Phillips  re-echoed  the 
sentiment  in  the  no  less  explicit  declaration,  "As  to  dis 
union,  it  must  and  will  come.  Calhoun  wants  it  at  one 

William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  88. 
zldem,  p.  100. 
3Idem,  p.  414. 

217 


218       WORCESTER  DISUNION  CONVENTION,   1857 

end  of  the  Union,  Garrison  wants  it  at  the  other.    It  is 
written  in  the  counsel  of  God."1 

Mr.  Schouler,  referring  to  the  foregoing  declaration  of 
Mr.  Garrison  and  the  occasion,  says:  "And  such  was  the 
general  tenor  of  anniversary  speeches  and  resolutions 
through  the  next  six  years,  whenever  and  wherever 
meetings  were  held  of  our  Anti-Slavery  Societies."2 

These  disunion  sentiments  continued  with  growing 
insistence  in  the  declarations  of  leading  Abolitionists  and 
in  the  platform  of  their  societies.  On  the  15th  of  January, 
1857,  there  assembled  at  Worcester,  Mass.,  the  "  Disunion 
Convention."  This  body  adopted,  among  other  resolu 
tions,  one  demanding  the  immediate  dissolution  of  the 
Union,  and  declaring  that  "The  sooner  the  separation 
takes  place,  the  more  peaceful  it  will  be;  but  that  peace 
or  war  is  a  secondary  consideration  in  view  of  our  present 
perils.  Slavery  must  be  conquered,  peaceably  if  we  can, 
forcibly  if  we  must."3  This  convention  appointed  a 
State  Committee  of  seven,  of  which  the  Rev.  Thomas 
Wentworth  Higginson  was  made  chairman,  to  direct  the 
propaganda  of  the  new  movement  and  a  general  con 
vention  composed  of  delegates  from  all  the  free  states 
was  recommended.  A  call  for  the  latter  convention  was 
accordingly  issued  in  July,  1857,  signed  by  Mr.  Higginson, 
Wendell  Phillips,  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  and  other 
leading  Abolitionists.  Cleveland,  Ohio,  was  selected  as 
the  place  for  the  convention,  because  a  majority  of  the 
signers  to  the  call,  some  seven  hundred  in  number,  were 
citizens  of  that  state.  The  28th  of  October  was  fixed  as 
the  date  for  the  meeting  of  the  convention.  This  body, 

^Wendell  Phillips,  Martin,  p.  207. 

^History  of  United  States,  Schouler,  Vol.  V,  p.  319. 

^William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  457. 


GARRISON  URGES  DISUNION  219 

however,  failed  to  assemble  because  of  the  terrible  financial 
panic  which  began  in  September  of  that  year,— the  leaders 
deciding  to  postpone  the  "  projected  Northern  Convention 
until  a  more  auspicious  period."1 

In  his  speech  before  the  "Disunion  Convention"  at 
Worcester,  Mass.,  above  referred  to,  William  Lloyd  Gar 
rison  said: 

"Again,  I  am  for  the  speedy  overthrow  of  the  Union 
because,  while  it  exists,  I  see  no  end  to  the  extension  of 
slavery.  I  see  everything  in  the  hands  of  the  Slave  Power 
now— all  the  resources  of  the  country, — every  dollar  in  the 
Treasury,  the  Navy,  the  Judiciary,  everything  in  its  grasp; 
and  I  know  that  with  all  these  means  and  facilities  and  the 
disposition  to  use  them,  nothing  can  successfully  contend 
against  it. 

"  I  am  sure  of  another  thing— that  when  the  North  shall 
withdraw  from  the  Union,  there  will  be  an  end  to  Southern 
filibustering  and  schemes  of  annexation.  Then  the  tables 
will  be  turned  and  we  shall  have  the  slaveholders  at  our 
doors  crying  for  mercy.  Rely  upon  it,  there  is  not  an 
intelligent  slaveholder  at  the  South  who  is  for  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union.  I  do  not  care  what  the  folly  or  insanity  of  the 
Southern  Nullifiers  may  be;  .  .  .  not  one  of  them  is  willing 
to  have  the  cord  cut  and  the  South  permitted  to  try  the 
experiment.  If  it  be  otherwise,  God  grant  that  she  may 
soon  take  this  step  and  see  whether  she  will  be  able  to  hold 
a  single  slave  one  hour  after  the  deed  is  done."2 

No  opportunity  was  neglected  to  inculcate  sentiments 
of  disloyalty  to  the  Union,  hatred  of  the  constitution, 
and  disregard  of  the  statutes  enacted  by  the  Federal 
Government  bearing  upon  slavery.  Sometimes  the  Aboli 
tionists  would  emphasize  their  position  and  lend  a  touch  of 

*Idem,  p.  463. 
*Idem,  pp.  456-7. 


220    ABOLITIONISTS'  ASSAULTS  ON  EMINENT  MEN 

realism  to  their  sentiments  by  burning  before  the  mul 
titudes  copies  of  the  constitution  and  obnoxious  laws 
passed  by  Congress. 

Thus  at  Framingham,  Mass.,  on  the  fourth  of  July,  1854, 
at  the  open-air  celebration  of  the  day  by  the  Abolitionists, 
William  Lloyd  Garrison  burned  copies  of  the  constitution, 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  the  opinions  of  several  Judges 
of  the  Federal  Courts  in  Massachusetts.  The  Liberator 
records  that  Mr.  Garrison,  "  holding  up  the  United  States 
constitution  branded  it  as  the  source  and  parent  of  all  the 
other  atrocities — a  covenant  with  Death  and  an  agreement 
with  Hell — and  consumed  it  to  ashes  on  the  spot,  exclaim 
ing,  'So  perish  all  compromises  with  Tyranny/  and  'Let 
all  the  people  say  Amen/  and  a  tremendous  shout  of 
'  Amen'  went  up  to  Heaven  in  ratification  of  the  deed.  "' 

No  eminence  of  public  station  nor  personal  worth 
availed  to  shield  from  the  assaults  of  these  Abolition  leaders. 
William  Lloyd  Garrison  alluding  to  Webster's  eulogies  upon 
the  constitution  declared,  "Let  Daniel  Webster,  the 
greatest  and  meanest  of  his  countrymen,  exhaust  his 
powers  of  eulogy  upon  it  if  he  will ;  the  effort  will  but  render 
his  character  base  and  contemptible  with  posterity."2 

Wendell  Phillips,  referring  to  the  "  Defender  of  the  Con 
stitution,"  said:  "God  gives  us  great  scoundrels  for  texts 
to  anti-slavery  sermons.  See  to  it,  when  nature  has  pro 
vided  you  a  monster  like  Webster,  that  you  exhibit  him — 
himself  a  whole  menagerie — throughout  the  country."3 
Subsequently  in  an  article  in  The  Liberator  on  Mr. Lincoln — 
then  but  recently  nominated  for  the  Presidency,  headed 

lldem,  p.  412. 
*Idem,  p.  184. 

^Speeches,  Lectures  and  Letters,  Wendell  Phillips,  Lee  &  Shepard, 
1892,  p.  48. 


ABOLITIONISTS   AND  SLAVE  INSURRECTIONS     221 

"Abraham  Lincoln,  the  Slave  Hound  of  Illinois/7  Wendell 
Phillips  wrote :  "  We  gibbet  a  Northern  hound  to-day  side 
by  side  with  the  infamous  Mason  of  Virginia."1 

Theodore  Parker  alluding  to  the  Federal  judges  and 
officials  in  Boston  who  bore  a  part  in  the  execution  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  addressing  the  "Spirits  of  Tyrants" 
and  apostrophising  Cain,  Herod,  Nero,  and  Torquemada, 
proceeds  as  follows:  "Come  up,  thou  heap  of  wickedness, 
George  Jeffreys!  Thy  hands  deep  purple  with  the  blood 
of  thy  murdered  fellow  men!  .  .  .  What!  Dost  thou 
shudder?  Thou  turn  back?  These  not  thy  kindred?  It 
is  true,  George  Jeffreys.  And  these  are  not  thy  kin.  .  .  . 
Thou  wouldst  not  send  a  man  into  bondage  for  two  pounds. 
I  will  not  rank  thee  with  men  who  in  Boston  for  ten  dollars 
would  enslave  a  negro  now."2 

Even  the  patriotic  enthusiasm  of  Longfellow  in  his  "  Ode 
to  the  Union,"  aroused  Garrison's  ire,  who  denounced  it  as 
"a  eulogy  dripping  with  the  blood  of  imbruted  humanity," 
and  for  the  poet's  conception  of  the  "Ship  of  State"  he 
substituted: 

.  .  .  "'Perfidious  bark! 

Built  i'  th;  eclipse  and  rigged  with  curses  dark/  .  .  . 
Destined  to  go  down  full  many  a  fathom  deep,  to  the  joy 
and  exultation  of  all  who  are  yearning  for  the  deliverance 
of  a  groaning  world."3  (a) 

William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  503. 

^Theodore  Parker,  A  Biography,  Frothingham,  p.  431. 

'William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  280. 

a  Note :  The  author  has  not  cited  any  examples  of  the  terms 
employed  by  the  leaders  of  the  Abolitionists  in  referring  to  the 
Southern  people.  If  Webster  were  denounced  as  a  "monster" 
and  Lincoln  as  a  "slave-hound"  because,  in  their  devotion  to  the 
Union  and  their  respect  for  law,  they  would  protect  the  con 
stitutional  rights  of  slaveholders,  the  reader  may  readily  imagine 


222      ABOLITIONISTS  APPLAUDED  JOHN   BROWN 

But  the  Abolitionists  did  not  confine  their  efforts  to 
denunciations  of  the  constitution  and  its  defenders,  or  in 
devising  schemes  for  the  overthrow  of  the  Union.  They 
actually  secured  the  enactment  by  many  Northern  Legis 
latures  of  so-called  Personal  Liberty  Laws,  designed  to 
nullify  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  passed  by  Congress.  In 
like  manner  many  of  them  were  the  apologists,  if  not  the 
instigators,  of  servile  insurrections,  of  which  John  Brown's 
venture  was  at  once  the  fell  offspring,  and  the  dread  sign 
of  more  to  follow.  William  Lloyd  Garrison  declared  that 
Brown  deserved  "to  be  held  in  grateful  and  honorable 
remembrance,  to  the  latest  posterity,  by  all  those  who  glory 
in  the  deeds  of  a  Wallace  or  a  Tell,  a  Washington  or  a 
Warren."1  Theodore  Parker  said:  "No  American  has 
died  in  this  century  whose  chance  of  earthly  immortality  is 
worth  half  so  much  as  John  Brown's."2  Wendell  Phillips 
speaking  in  Plymouth  Church  declared:  "John  Brown 
violated  the  law.  Yes.  On  yonder  desk  lie  the  inspired 
words  of  men  who  died  violent  deaths  for  breaking  the  laws 
of  Rome.  Why  do  you  listen  to  them  so  reverently? 
Huss  and  Wy cliff e  violated  laws.  Why  honor  them? 
George  Washington,  had  he  been  caught  before  1783,  would 
have  died  on  the  gibbet  for  breaking  the  laws  of  his 
sovereign."3 

William  Lloyd  Garrison,  while  insisting  that  he  himself 

the  denunciations  poured  upon  the  citizens  of  the  slaveholding 
states.  For  twenty-five  years  the  people  of  the  South,  their 
civilization  and  morality  were  arraigned  by  orators  and  editors, 
preachers  and  poets,  dramatists  and  novelists,  in  terms  without 
parallel  in  polemic  literature. 

lldem,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  489-491. 

^Theodore  Parker,  A  Biography,  Frothingham,  p.  463. 

^Speeches,  Lectures  and  Letters,  Wendell  Phillips,  Lee  &  Shepard, 
1892,  p.  279. 


ABOLITIONISTS  AIDED  JOHN   BROWN  223 

was  a  "peace  man"  and  opposed  to  the  use  of  "carnal 
weapons/'  proclaimed:  "I  am  prepared  to  say,  success  to 
every  slave  insurrection  at  the  South  and  in  every  slave 
country/'1  and  Theodore  Parker  re-affirmed  the  senti 
ment  in  the  declaration :  "  I  should  like,  of  all  things,  to  see 
an  insurrection  of  slaves.  It  must  be  tried  many  times 
before  it  succeeds,  as  at  last  it  must."2 

Wendell  Phillips  speaking  at  the  grave  of  John  Brown 
said:  "Insurrection  was  a  harsh,  horrid  word  to  millions 
a  month  ago.  John  Brown  went  a  whole  generation  beyond 
it,  claiming  the  right  for  white  men  to  help  the  slave  to 
freedom  by  arms.  And  now  men  run  up  and  down  not  dis 
puting  his  principles."3 

Admiral  Chadwick  in  his  recent  work,  The  Causes  of 
the  Civil  War,  thus  presents  the  position  of  prominent 
Abolitionists  with  respect  to  servile  insurrections  and 
especially  the  efforts  to  precipitate  one  at  Harper's  Ferry: 

"  Parker  was  also  one  who  could  say,  'I  should  like  of  all 
things  to  see  an  insurrection  of  slaves.  It  must  be  tried 
many  times  before  it  succeeds,  as  at  last  it  must/  an 
expression  which  was  the  outcome  of  his  own  full  knowledge 
of  what  was  brewing.  Of  this  the  others  of  the  Boston 
Secret  Committee,  Stearns,  Higginson,  Howe,  and  Sanborn, 
as  already  shown  on  the  authority  of  the  last,  also  had  full 
information,  as  had  Gerrit  Smith,  with  the  exception,  per 
haps,  of  the  exact  place  at  which  Brown  was  to  strike. 
Brown's  funds  were  supplied  by  these  men,  who  were 
accessories  before  the  fact  in  the  fullest  meaning  of  the 
phrase.  It  is  impossible  to  justify  such  actions. 

"Stearns  and  his  fellows  were  not  martyrs;  they  did  not 

lWilliam  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  489-491. 
^Theodore  Parker,  A  Biography,  Frothingham,  p.  475. 
^Speeches,  Lectures  and  Letters,  Wendell  Phillips,  Lee  &  Shepard, 
1892,  p.  291. 


224          THE  UNION  PROTECTS  SLAVEHOLDERS 

risk  their  lives;  they  were  not  in  open  warfare;  they  were 
simply  in  secret  conspiracy  to  carry  by  bolder  instruments 
throughout  the  South  the  horrors  of  Hayti,  still  vivid  in 
the  recollection  of  many  then  yet  living.  "l 

But  the  Abolitionists  appreciated  that  it  was  the  Union 
and  its  power  that  stood  as  the  strongest  barrier  against 
the  success  of  their  instigations  to  servile  insurrection,  and 
held  in  leash  the  giant  form,  Slavery,  with  its  pike  and 
brand.  Long  ago  Mr.  Garrison  had  said: 

"What  protects  the  South  from  instant  destruction? 
Our  physical  force.  Break  the  chain  which  binds  her  to 
the  Union  and  the  scenes  of  St.  Domingo  would  be  wit 
nessed  throughout  her  borders.  She  may  affect  to  laugh 
at  this  prophecy  but  she  knows  her  security  lies  in  Northern 
bayonets.  Nay,  she  has  repeatedly  taunted  the  free 
states  with  being  pledged  to  protect 


^Causes  of  the  Civil  War,  Chad  wick,  p.  84. 

^William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  I,  p.  309. 


XXXII 

THE  ABOLITIONISTS  AND  DISUNION  (Concluded) 

THESE  citations  from  the  deliverances  of  the  great 
leaders  of  the  Abolitionists  will  give  some  idea  of  the 
motives  and  methods  which  pervaded  that  fellowship. 
With  tireless  insistence  they  went  forward  with  their  labors 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union,  the  latter  being  deemed  a  condition  precedent 
to  the  complete  accomplishment  of  the  former.  Only 
the  action  of  South  Carolina,  which  brought  the  nation 
face  to  face  with  a  practical  attempt  at  disunion,  served 
to  suspend  the  efforts  of  the  Abolitionists  to  effect  a  like 
result.  This  momentous  step  on  the  part  of  South  Carolina 
was  received  with  exultant  satisfaction — William  Lloyd 
Garrison  declaring,  "All  Union-saving  efforts  are  simply 
idiotic.  At  last  'the  covenant  with  Death '  is  annulled, 
and  the  'agreement  with  Hell'  broken,  at  least  by  the 
action  of  South  Carolina,  and  ere  long  by  all  the  slave- 
holding  states,  for  their  doom  is  one/'1  And  Wendell 
Phillips  re-echoed  the  sentiment:  "Let  the  South  march 
off  with  flags  and  trumpets,  and  we  will  speed  the  parting 
guest.  Let  her  not  stand  upon  the  order  of  her  going, 
but  go  at  once:  Give  her  jewels  of  silver  and  gold,  and 
rejoice  that  she  has  departed.  All  hail,  Disunion!"2 

Such  was  the  condition  of  affairs  with  respect  to  the 
controversy  over  slavery  in  Virginia  in  the  fateful  winter 

William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  his  children,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  508. 
*Thurlow  Weed,  Barnes,  Vol.  II,  p.  305. 

225 


226  THE  UNION  THWARTS  EFFORTS  OF  ABOLITIONISTS 

of  1860-61.  For  the  maintenance  of  the  institution  stood 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  Union  and  the  pledges 
of  the  Republican  Party  dominant  in  their  administration. 
For  the  destruction  of  the  institution  stood  the  Aboli 
tionists,  a  great  fellowship,  earnest  and  aggressive,  but 
without  official  power  in  the  National  Government  and 
relying  upon  disunion  or  a  condition  of  civil  war  as  the 
essential  prerequisite  to  the  accomplishment  of  their 
plans. 
James  G.  Elaine  wrote : 

"  But  for  the  constant  presence  of  National  power  and  its 
constant  exercise  under  the  provisions  of  the  constitution, 
the  South  would  have  no  protection  against  anti-slavery 
assaults  of  the  civilized  world.  Abolitionists  from  the 
very  beginning  of  their  energetic  crusade  against  slavery 
had  seen  the  constitution  standing  in  their  way,  and  with 
the  unsparing  severity  of  their  logic  had  denounced  it  as 
*  a  league  with  Hell  and  a  covenant  with  Death."'1 

The  people  of  Virginia  in  like  manner  appreciated  the 
situation.  "What  madness,"  wrote  Madison,  "in  the 
South  to  look  for  greater  safety  in  disunion!  It  would  be 
worse  than  jumping  out  of  the  frying  pan  into  the  fire. 
It  would  be  jumping  into  the  fire  from  fear  of  the  frying 
pan,  i.e.,  Northern  meddling  with  slavery."2 

Governor  McDowell,  referring  to  slavery  and  disunion, 
said: 

"If  gentlemen  do  not  see  or  feel  the  evil  of  slavery 
whilst  the  Federal  Union  lasts,  they  will  see  and  feel  it 
when  it  is  gone;  they  will  see  and  suffer  it  then  in  a  magni- 

lTwenty  Years  of  Congress,  Elaine,  Vol.  I,  176. 
"^Madison  to  Clay,  Private  Correspondence  of  Henry  Clay,  Colton, 
p.  365. 


VIEWS  OF  PROMINENT  VIRGINIANS  227 

tude  of  desolating  power  to  which  'the  pestilence  that 
walketh  in  darkness'  would  be  a  blessing." 

Referring  to  the  protection  afforded  slavery  by  the 
Federal  Constitution,  he  said: 

"Withdraw  but  the  protecting  energies  of  that  instru 
ment  and  be  the  associations  into  which  we  shall  be  thrown 
what  they  may — whether  directed  by  judgment  or  caprice 
— our  distinct  character  as  a  slavehololing  people  will 
still  be  left — we  shall  still  hold  a  separate  and  adversary 
interest  but  hold  it  under  circumstances  of  aggravated 
evil,  as  the  existence  of  it  will  disqualify  us  for  defense 
in  the  very  degree  in  which  it  will  expose  us  to  foreign 
hostility  and  wrong,"1 

Robert  E.  Lee,  referring  to  the  same  subject,  wrote, 

"The  South,  in  my  opinion,  has  been  aggrieved  by  the 
acts  of  the  North,  as  you  say.  I  feel  the  aggression  and 
am  willing  to  take  every  proper  step  for  redress.  .  .  . 
But  I  can  anticipate  no  greater  calamity  than  a  dissolu 
tion  of  the  Union.  It  would  be  an  accumulation  of  all 
the  evils  we  complain  of,  and  I  am  willing  to  sacrifice 
everything,  but  honor,  for  its  preservation."2 

George  W.  Summers,  speaking  in  the  Virginia  Con 
vention  of  1861,  said: 

"What  has  Virginia  to  gain  by  secession  and  separate 
action?  Nothing  on  the  territorial  question  but  lose 
everything.  On  the  fugitive  slave  question,  she  could 
make  no  treaties  with  the  North  or  with  England.  In 
relation  to  the  institution  of  slavery,  which  I  consider 
morally,  socially  and  politically  right,  she  will  lose  the 

^Virginia  Slavery  Debate,  1832,  Speech  of  James  McDowell, 
pp.  23-24. 

^Memoirs  of  Robert  E.  Lee,  Long,  p.  88. 


228        CIVIL  WAR  WOULD  AID  EMANCIPATION 

present  protection  and  be  exposed  to  border  incursions 
from  a  foreign  government."1 

John  S.  Carlile,  speaking  in  the  same  convention,  said: 

"  I  have  been  a  slaveholder  from  the  time  I' ve  been  able 
to  buy  a  slave.  I  have  been  a  slaveholder  not  by  in 
heritance  but  by  purchase;  and  I  believe  that  slavery  is 
a  social,  political  and  religious  blessing.  .  .  .  How  long, 
if  you  were  to  dissolve  this  Union— if  you  were  to  sepa 
rate  the  slaveholding  from  the  non-slaveholding  states, 
would  African  slavery  have  a  foothold  in  this  portion  of 
the  land?  I  venture  the  assertion  that  it  would  not  exist 
in  Virginia  five  years  after  the  separation;  and  nowhere 
in  the  Southern  States  twenty  years  after.  How  could 
it  maintain  itself,  with  the  whole  civilized  world,  backed 
by  what  they  call  ttheir  <  international  law,  arrayed  for 
its  ultimate  extinction  with  this  North,  which  is  now 
bound  to  stand  by  us  and  to  protect  slavery,  opposed  to 
us?  .  .  .  And  now,  Mr.  President!  in  the  name  of  our 
illustrious  dead,  in  the  name  of  all  the  living,  in  the  name 
of  millions  yet  unborn,  I  protest  against  this  wicked  effort 
to  destroy  the  fairest  and  freest  government  on  the  earth."2 

It  was  under  the  reign  of  law  and  with  the  forces  of  the 
Union  as  its  allies  that  the  institution  of  slavery  could 
meet  with  success,  all  assaults  coming  from  beyond  the 
states  where  it  existed.  Amid  the  clash  of  arms  and  with 
the  Federal  Government  no  longer  protecting  their  rights, 
slaveholders  were  most  open  to  successful  attack  and 
slavery  most  likely  to  receive  its  mortal  blow. 

Wendell  Phillips  expressed  the  idea  when  he  declared: 

"  The  storm  which  rocked  the  vessel  of  state  almost  to 
foundering  snapped  forever  the  chain  of  the  French  slave. 

^Richmond  Dispatch,  March  13,  1861. 

2See  Richmond  Enquirer,  March  llth,  1861. 


SECESSION  NOT  LOGICAL  DEFENSE  229 

Look,  too,  at  the  history  of  the  Mexican  and  South  America 
emancipation  and  you  will  find  that  it  was  in  every  in 
stance,  I  think,  the  child  of  convulsion.  The  hour  will 
come — God  hasten  it! — when  the  American  people  shall 
so  stand  on  the  deck  of  their  Union — 'built  ij  th'  eclipse, 
and  rigged  with  curses  dark/  If  I  live  to  see  the  hour  I 
shall  say  to  every  slave, ' Strike  now  for  Freedom.7"1 

It  would  seem  most  unreasonable  and  illogical  to  suppose 
that  the  people  of  Virginia  turned  to  secession  and  civil 
war  from  a  selfish  desire  to  safeguard  slavery  from  the 
attacks  of  the  Abolitionists.  Such  a  course  augmented 
rather  than  lessened  the  dangers  which  beset  the  institution. 

If,  however,  worn  out  with  the  assaults  upon  their 
constitutional  rights  and  wounded  in  their  pride  by  the 
fierce  arraignments  of  their  character  and  civilization, 
they  turned  to  separation  as  a  means  of  preserving  their 
self-respect  and  as  showing  a  determination  to  live  no 
longer  in  political  association  with  their  enemies,  then 
their  action  becomes  intelligible — whatever  may  be  the 
judgment  as  to  the  just  proportion  between  the  wrongs 
complained  of  and  the  remedy  proposed. 

1  Speeches,  Lectures  and  Letters,  Wendell  Phillips,  Lee  &  Shepard, 
1892,  p.  85. 


XXXIII 

THE  EMANCIPATION  PROCLAMATIONS  AND  THE 
VIRGINIA  PEOPLE 

OUR  review  of  the  record  of  the  Federal  Government 
with  respect  to  slavery  and  the  attitude  of  the  Republican 
Party,  which  had  just  assumed  control  of  its  Executive  and 
Legislative  Departments,  in  regard  thereto,  is  sufficient  to 
demonstrate  that,  at  the  time  Virginia  seceded,  she  could 
not  have  been  actuated  by  a  selfish  desire  to  defend  the 
institution  against  the  hostile  power  of  the  Nation.  There 
was  no  rallying  of  the  people  of  Virginia  to  resist  a  threat 
ened  edict  of  emancipation  because  no  such  proclamation 
had  ever  been  suggested.  As  we  shall  see,  the  proclamation 
which  aroused  them  to  arms  was  the  call  of  President  Lin 
coln  for  seventy-five  thousand  men  to  re-establish  the 
authority  of  the  National  Government  in  the  Southern 
Confederacy  and  the  demand  that  Virginia  should  furnish 
her  quota  of  soldiers  for  the  momentous  undertaking. 
Virginia,  denying  the  right  of  the  Federal  Government 
to  enter  upon  this  policy  of  armed  coercion,  withdrew  from 
the  Union  along  with  North  Carolina,  Tennessee  and 
Arkansas.  On  this  great  issue  the  battle  was  joined  and 
men  by  the  thousands  gave  their  lives  to  the  rival  claims 
of  Home  Rule  versus  National  Supremacy.  The  war  thus 
precipitated  went  onward  with  its  terrible  fruitage  of  death 
and  destruction  for  nearly  a  year  and  a  half  when  President 
Lincoln  issued  his  first  Proclamation  of  Emancipation. 
Could  any  change  or  attempted  change,  by  the  Federal 

230 


EFFECTS  OF  PROCLAMATIONS  231 

Government,  of  the  motives  for  the  struggle  on  the  part  of 
the  Northern  people  alter  the  motives  which  actuated  the 
people  of  Virginia  and  shift  for  them  the  gage  of  battle? 
That  the  proclamations  did  not  in  fact  convert  the  contest 
on  the  part  of  the  Southern  States  from  a  war  waged  for 
their  independence  into  one  for  the  maintenance  of  slavery 
is  manifest  from  the  terms  of  the  proclamations  themselves 
and  the  unchanged  attitude  of  the  Southern  people.  The 
first  proclamation  threatened  the  emancipation  of  the 
slaves  in  states,  or  portions  of  states,  which  might  still  be 
found  in  arms  against  the  Union  one  hundred  days  there 
after,  and  exempted  from  emancipation  slaves  in  states 
and  portions  of  states  which  would  surrender  their  battle 
for  independence.  Had  the  Federal  Government  offered 
to  accord  the  Southern  States  their  independence  pro 
vided  they  would  abolish  slavery  then  their  rejection  of 
such  an  offer  and  their  continuance  to  do  battle  might  have 
rendered  them  liable  to  the  charge  of  fighting  to  maintain 
the  institution.  But  the  offer  and  threat  presented  just 
the  other  alternative  and  were  alike  unavailing  to  stop  the 
struggle  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  people.  To  quote 
the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln: 

"After  the  commencement  of  hostilities,  I  struggled 
nearly  a  year  and  a  half  to  get  along  without  touching  the 
institution,  and  when  finally  I  conditionally  determined 
to  touch  it,  I  gave  a  hundred  days  fair  notice  of  my  purpose 
to  all  the  states  and  people  within  which  time  they  could 
have  turned  it  wholly  aside  by  simply  again  becoming  good 
citizens  of  the  United  States."1 

In  neither  portion  of  Virginia — that  in  which  emanci- 

'Letter  of  Lincoln  to  General  McClernand,  January  8th,  1863. 
Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H.,  Vol. 
II,  p.  296. 


232         CONDITIONS  WHICH  PRECIPITATED  WAR 

pation  was  decreed  nor  that  in  which  slavery  was  to  remain 
unaffected  (a)  did  President  Lincoln's  proclamations  pro 
duce  any  change  in  the  attitude  of  her  people  and  this  was 
so  because,  as  they  protested,  slavery  was  neither  the 
interest  nor  the  issue  which  had  impelled  them  to  draw  the 
sword. 

We  would  not,  however,  be  understood  as  maintaining 
that  slavery  did  not  constitute  the  most  potential  factor 
in  developing  the  conditions  which  finally  precipitated  the 
Civil  War.  The  acrimonious  discussions  of  thirty  years, 
the  conflicts  over  legislation,  state  and  Federal,  the  crimina 
tions  and  recriminations  from  pulpit,  press  and  platform, 
found  at  length  their  baneful  fruit  in  the  destruction  of 
tolerance,  confidence  and  fraternity  between  the  people 
of  the  two  great  sections.  With  hearts  dissevered,  the 
bonds  of  union  were  strained  to  the  utmost,  and  when  at 
length  a  sectional  propaganda  inaugurated  by  one  great 
element  of  the  Northern  people  scored  a  triumph  at  the 
polls,  the  people  of  the  Cotton  States  sought  in  secession 
release  from  a  political  association  which  they  regarded  as 
repugnant  to  their  feelings  and  subversive  of  their  rights. 
But  upon  the  issues  thus  made  up  Virginia  refused  to 
secede.  It  was  after  the  secession  of  the  Cotton  States  that 
the  people  of  Virginia  at  their  election  February  4th,  1861, 
by  a  great  majority  still  declared  for  union.  Other  and 
more  fundamental  causes  for  secession  and  conflict  had  to 
arise  before  Virginia  could  be  driven  to  abandon  the  Union. 

a  Note:  The  reader  will  recall  that  the  proclamation  did  not 
emancipate  the  slaves  in  "the  Counties  of  Berkeley,  Accomac, 
Northampton,  Elizabeth  City,  York,  Princess  Anne  and  Norfolk, 
including  the  cities  of  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth,"  nor  those  in  the 
States  of  Delaware,  Maryland,  West  Virginia,  Kentucky,  Missouri, 
Tennessee  and  portions  of  Louisiana. 


CONDITIONS  WHICH  PRECIPITATED  WAR         233 

Nor  would  we  seek  to  maintain  that  an  unconstitutional 
assault  by  the  Federal  Government  or  the  Northern  States 
upon  the  institution  of  slavery  in  Virginia  would  not  have 
provoked  and  justified  resistance.  Such  resistance,  how 
ever,  could  not  fairly  be  imputed  to  a  sordid  and  selfish 
desire  to  protect  the  institution.  To  repel  invasion  of 
constitutional  rights  is  the  highest  duty  of  a  free  people. 
It  is  the  right  and  principle  involved,  and  not  the  incident 
or  interest  which  occasioned  the  invasion,  that  determines 
the  motive  and  character  of  the  resistance. 

John  Hampden  and  his  compatriots  resisted  with  arms 
what  they  regarded  as  the  unconstitutional  effort  of  their 
Sovereign  to  collect  the  "  Ship  Money"  and  yet  it  would  be  a 
most  superficial  and  untruthful  conception  of  their  position 
to  declare  that  they  fought  for  the  sum  involved  in  the 
King's  attempt.  In  the  language  of  Edmund  Burke  in  his 
great  speech  on  taxing  the  American  Colonies,  "Would 
twenty  shillings  have  ruined  Mr.  Hampden's  fortune? 
No!  But  the  payment  of  half  twenty  shillings  on  the 
principle  it  was  demanded  would  have  made  him  a  slave. " 


PART  III 

VIRGINIA  DID   NOT  SECEDE  FROM  A  WANTON 

DESIRE  TO  DESTROY  THE  UNION  OR 

FROM  HOSTILITY  TO  THE  IDEALS 

OF  ITS  FOUNDERS 


XXXIV 

VIRGINIA'S  PART  IN  THE  REVOLUTION 

IN  considering  the  question  whether  Virginia,  in  trans 
ferring  her  allegiance  to  the  Southern  Confederacy,  was 
animated  by  a  wanton  desire  to  destroy  the  Union  and 
defeat  the  ideals  of  its  founders,  it  will  assist  to  a  more 
accurate  conclusion  if  we  review  her  part  in  the  making  of 
the  Republic  and  the  spirit  which  moved  her  people  in  the 
day  of  separation.  If  she  had  been  conspicuous  in  the 
work  of  establishing  the  Union  and  in  promoting  its  growth 
and  glory,  then  it  were  more  reasonable  to  ascribe  her 
desire  to  terminate  the  association  to  convictions  of  duty 
than  to  motives  capricious  or  selfish  in  their  origin.  If  in 
the  day  of  sectional  strife,  she  pleaded  for  union  and 
reconciliation,  then  her  presence  in  the  battle  which  fol 
lowed  was  more  justly  attributed  to  the  inexorable  logic 
of  events  than  to  causes  of  her  own  initiation. 

It  is  well  within  the  bounds  of  historic  truth  to  say  that 
Virginia  had  been  pre-eminent  among  her  sister  states  in 
fixing  the  ideals  and  founding  the  Republic;  that,  with 
unsurpassed  devotion,  she  had  contributed  of  men  and 
treasure  to  promote  its  growth  and  enhance  its  glory;  and 
that  amid  the  strife  and  conflicts  which  preceded  the  Civil 
War,  she  stood  a  mediator  between  the  hostile  sections  and 
an  unwearied  advocate  of  reconciliation  and  peace. 

In  1764,  when  the  liberties  of  the  American  people  were 
menaced  by  a  Stamp  Tax,  Virginia  was  among  the  first  of 
the  colonies  to  memorialize  the  King  in  opposition,  and  the 

237 


238  RESISTANCE  TO  STAMP  TAX 

only  one  to  address  to  the  House  of  Commons  a  remon 
strance  against  the  right  of  that  body  to  enact  such  legis 
lation.1 

The  Stamp  Act  caused  great  opposition  throughout 
America.  "  But/7  says  John  Fiske,  "  formal  defiance  came 
first  from  Virginia."2  "The  Assembly  of  Virginia,7'  says 
J.  R.  Green,  "  was  the  first  to  formally  deny  the  right  of  the 
British  Parliament  to  meddle  with  internal  taxation  and  to 
demand  the  repeal  of  the  act.773 

In  1765,  her  House  of  Burgesses,  under  the  leadership 
of  Patrick  Henry,  adopted  her  celebrated  resolutions 
against  the  Stamp  Tax.  Only  less  important  than  the 
resolutions  themselves  was  the  thrilling  arraignment  of 
British  usurpation  and  assaults  upon  the  liberties  of 
America  with  which  the  great  orator  aroused  his  country 
men.  "Thus,77  says  Mr.  Bancroft,  "Virginia  rang  the 
alarm  bell  for  the  continent.77 

In  1768,  Virginia  applauded  Massachusetts  for  her  stand; 
re-affirmed  the  position  that  Parliament  had  no  right  to 
tax  the  colonies;  and  directed  that  these  resolutions  of 
her  House  of  Burgesses  be  communicated  to  all  the  colonies 
with  the  insistence  that  they  should  unite  in  opposition 
to  every  attempt  of  Great  Britain  to  levy  taxes  upon  the 
American  people. 

In  1769,  her  House  of  Burgesses  again  asserted  its 
position  in  a  series  of  resolutions  which  Mr.  Bancroft 
declares  were  "so  calm  in  manner  and  so  perfect  in  sub 
stance  that  time  finds  no  omission  to  regret,  no  improve 
ment  to  suggest.  The  menace  of  arresting  patriots  lost 
its  terror  and  Virginia's  declaration  and  action  consolidated 

^History  of  the  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  93. 

*The  American  Revolution,  Fiske,  Vol.  I,  p.  18. 

SA  Short  History  of  the  English  People,  J.  R.  Green,  1883,  p.  735. 


CO-OPERATION  BETWEEN  THE  COLONIES       239 

union."1  Though  dissolved  by  the  Royal  Governor 
because  of  this  action,  the  members  of  the  body  immedi 
ately  assembled,  and  under  the  leadership  of  Washington, 
an  agreement  was  entered  into  providing  against  the 
importation  of  goods  from  Great  Britain  until  all  uncon 
stitutional  acts  should  be  repealed. 

Resistance  to  British  tyranny  continuing  unabated,  a 
yearning  for  union  sprang  up  among  all  the  colonies. 
"Whether  that  great  idea/'  says  Mr.  Bancroft,  "should 
become  a  reality,  rested  on  Virginia."2  Her  House  of 
Burgesses  assembled  in  March,  1773,  when,  under  the 
leadership  of  Dabney  Carr,  Richard  Henry  Lee,  and 
Patrick  Henry,  resolutions  were  adopted  providing  for  a 
system  of  inter-colonial  committees  of  correspondence. 
"Carr's  plan,"  says  Mr.  Bancroft,  "included  a  thorough 
union  council  throughout  the  land.  If  it  should  succeed 
and  be  adopted  by  the  other  colonies,  America  would 
stand  before  the  world  as  a  confederacy."  Copies  of 
these  resolutions  were  sent  to  every  colony,  with  the 
request  that  each  would  appoint  a  committee  to  com 
municate  from  time  to  time  with  that  of  Virginia.  "In 
this  manner,"  says  Mr.  Bancroft,  "  Virginia  laid  the  founda 
tion  of  our  Union."3 

In  May,  1774,  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses  by  a 
resolution  called  upon  their  fellow-citizens  to  set  apart 
the  day  on  which  the  act  closing  the  port  of  Boston  was  to 
take  effect: 

"As  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer,  devoutly  to  implore 
the  divine  interposition  for  averting  the  dreadful  calamity 

History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  347. 
^History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  436. 
*Idem,  p.  437. 


240  THE  CONTINENTAL  CONGRESS 

which  threatened  destruction  to  their  civil  rights  and  the 
evils  of  a  civil  war,  and  to  give  to  the  American  people 
one  heart  and  one  mind  firmly  to  oppose,  by  all  just  and 
proper  means,  every  injury  to  American  rights." 

Upon  the  adoption  of  this  resolution,  the  Royal  Governor 
dissolved  the  Assembly,  but  the  members  immediately 
met  and  resolved  "that  an  attack  made  on  one  of  our 
sister  colonies  to  compel  submission  to  arbitrary  taxes  is 
an  attack  made  on  all  British  America,  and  threatens  ruin  to 
the  rights  of  all  unless  the  united  wisdom  of  the  whole  be 
applied."1  These  sentiments  of  fraternity  and  union 
were  re-echoed  in  the  words  of  Washington:  "I  will  raise 
one  thousand  men,  subsist  them  at  my  own  expense,  and 
march  at  their  head  for  the  relief  of  Boston,"  a  declaration 
soon  followed  by  the  march  of  Virginians  under  Daniel 
Morgan  to  the  succor  of  that  besieged  city. 

Largely  as  a  result  of  the  committees  of  correspondence 
created  under  the  Virginia  resolutions,  the  Continental 
Congress  assembled  in  Philadelphia  in  September,  1774. 
Virginia  gave  to  that  body  its  first  president,  in  the  person 
of  Peyton  Randolph,  while  Patrick  Henry  fired  the  hearts 
of  its  members  with  the  spirit  of  nationalism  by  the  declara 
tion:  "British  oppression  has  effaced  the  boundaries  of 
the  several  colonies.  The  distinctions  between  Virginians, 
Pennsylvanians,  New  Yorkers  and  New  Englanders  are 
no  more.  I  am  not  a  Virginian,  but  an  American." 

Thus  was  launched  the  Revolution — a  movement  in 
which,  Mr.  Bancroft  declares :  "  Virginia  rose  with  as  much 
unanimity  as  Connecticut  or  Massachusetts,  and  with 
more  commanding  resolution."2 

It  was  Virginia  that  first,  by  formal  resolution  of  her 

Vdem,  Vol.  IV,  p.  17. 

^History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  IV,  p.  413. 


VIRGINIA  AND  THE  NORTHWEST  TERRITORY    241 

Constitutional  Convention,  called  on  the  Continental 
Congress  to  declare  the  colonies  "free  and  independent 
states,"  absolved  from  all  allegiance  to  the  British  crown. 
Richard  Henry  Lee  submitted  the  motion  to  the  Congress, 
and  following  its  adoption,  Thomas  Jefferson  wrote  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  In  the  war  which  followed, 
Washington  commanded  the  armies  of  the  Revolution 
and  by  his  incomparable  qualities  of  leadership  brought 
success  to  the  cause. 

While  bearing  her  part  in  maintaining  the  cause  of 
the  colonies  in  their  struggle  with  the  Mother  Country, 
Virginia  commissioned  and  equipped  the  expedition 
which  under  the  leadership  of  her  son,  George  Rogers 
Clark,  conquered  the  empire  of  the  northwest,  an  achieve 
ment  the  very  romance  of  daring  and  valor.  Even  more 
important  to  the  cause  of  union  than  the  conquest  was 
Virginia's  action  in  dedicating  the  territory  to  the  new 
confederation,  thus  cementing  the  ties  and  interests  of 
the  separate  colonies  in  a  vast  domain,  the  common 
property  of  the  whole. 


XXXV 

VIRGINIA'S  PART  IN  MAKING  THE  UNION  UNDER  THE 
CONSTITUTION 

WHEN  the  Revolution  had  finally  triumphed  in  the  battle 
fought  out  on  her  soil,  Virginia  statesmen  were  the  first  to 
realize  the  infirmities  of  the  existing  government  and  the 
need  of  a  system  more  National  in  its  ideals  and  powers. 

In  1786,  her  General  Assembly  adopted  resolutions  call 
ing  for  a  meeting  of  representatives  from  all  the  states 
to  prepare  such  amendments  to  the  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion  as  would  enlarge  the  powers  of  Congress  over  com 
merce, — foreign  and  domestic.  A  delegation,  with  James 
Madison  at  its  head,  was  appointed  and  the  first  Monday 
in  September,  1786,  fixed  as  the  time,  and  Annapolis  as 
the  place,  for  the  assembling  of  the  convention.  Repre 
sentatives  from  only  five  states  responded  to  Virginia's 
appeal,  but  they  issued  an  address  calling  for  a  convention 
to  assemble  in  Philadelphia  on  the  second  Monday  in 
May,  1787,  to  devise  such  provisions  as  would  "render  the 
constitution  of  the  Federal  Government  adequate  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  Union."  Despite  the  imminence  of  the 
dangers  which  threatened  the  country,  and  the  manifest 
need  of  a  stronger  union,  the  Continental  Congress  at 
first  refused  its  sanction  to  the  movement;  the  Governor 
of  New  York  denied  the  need  of  any  action;  and  the 
Legislature  of  Massachusetts  formally  declined  to  appoint 
delegates  to  the  convention.1 

^History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  VI,  p.  196. 
242 


EFFORTS  TO  STRENGTHEN  UNION  243 

"From  this  state  of  despair,"  says  Mr.  Bancroft,  "the 
country  was  lifted  by  Madison  and  Virginia.  The  recom 
mendation  of  a  plenipotentiary  convention  was  well 
received  by  the  Assembly  of  Virginia.  .  .  .  On  the 
motion  of  Madison  the  Assembly  gave  its  unanimous 
sanction  to  the  recommendation  from  Annapolis."1 

Continuing,  Mr.  Bancroft  says:  "We  come  now  upon  the 
week  glorious  for  Virginia  beyond  any  event  in  its  annals 
or  in  the  history  of  any  former  republic/'2  Without  a 
dissenting  voice,  the  General  Assembly  adopted  a  memorial 
approving  the  plan  for  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  the 
spirit  and  purpose  of  which  will  appear  from  the  following 
extract : 

"The  General  Assembly  of  this  commonwealth,  taking 
into  view  the  situation  of  the  confederacy  as  well  as 
reflecting  on  the  alarming  representations  made  from 
time  to  time  by  the  United  States  in  Congress,  particularly 
in  their  act  of  the  15th  day  of  February  last,  can  no  longer 
doubt  that  the  crisis  is  arrived  at  which  the  people  of 
America  are  to  decide  the  solemn  question  whether  they 
will  by  wise  and  magnanimous  efforts  reap  the  fruits  of 
independence  and  of  union,  or  whether  by  giving  way  to 
unmanly  jealousies  and  prejudices  or  to  partial  and  transi 
tory  interests  they  will  renounce  the  blessings  prepared 
for  them  by  the  Revolution.  The  same  noble  and  ex 
tended  policy,  and  the  same  fraternal  and  affectionate 
sentiments  which  originally  determined  the  citizens  of 
this  commonwealth  to  unite  with  their  brethren  of  the 
other  states  in  establishing  a  Federal  Government  cannot 
but  be  felt  with  equal  force  now  as  motives  to  lay  aside 
every  inferior  consideration,  and  to  concur  in  such  further 
concessions  and  provisions  as  may  be  necessary  to  secure 
the  objects  for  which  that  Government  was  instituted, 

*Idem,  p.  197. 

^History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  VI,  p.  197. 


244         WORK  OF  PHILADELPHIA  CONVENTION 

and  render  the  United  States  as  happy  in  peace  as  th&y 
have  been  glorious  in  war."1 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  foregoing  resolution, 
Virginia  commissioned  a  delegation  of  her  foremost  men 
to  represent  her  at  Philadelphia;  among  them,  George 
Washington,  James  Madison,  George  Mason,  George 
Wythe,  and  Edmund  Randolph.  Under  such  inspiring 
leadership,  opposition  was  allayed,  and  in  the  convention 
which  followed,  representatives  finally  gathered  from  every 
state  except  Rhode  Island. 

Over  this  convention,  George  Washington  was  called  to 
preside.  Hesitancy  and  weakness  were  banished  by  his 
words : 

"It  is  too  probable  that  no  plan  we  propose  will  be 
adopted.  Perhaps  another  dreadful  conflict  is  to  be  sus 
tained.  If,  to  please  the  people,  we  offer  what  we  our 
selves  disapprove,  how  can  we  afterward  defend  our 
work?  Let  us  raise  a  standard  to  which  the  wise  and 
honest  can  repair;  the  event  is  in  the  hand  of  God."2 

To  the  convention,  Edmund  Randolph,  then  Governor 
of  the  commonwealth,  presented  the  "Virginia  Plan," 
which,  though  amended  in  many  important  particulars, 
was  the  basis  of  our  present  constitution.  The  scheme 
of  government  offered  by  Governor  Randolph  was  the 
work  of  James  Madison,  and  because  of  his  authorship 
and  his  great  labors  in  connection  with  its  final  prepara 
tion  and  adoption  by  the  several  states,  he  earned  the 
high  appellation  of  "  Father  of  the  Constitution." 

"The  great  mind  of  Madison,"  says  John  Fiske,  "was 
one  of  the  first  to  entertain  distinctly  the  noble  conception 

lldem,  p.  198. 

^History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  VI,  p.  210. 


ACHIEVEMENTS  UNDER  VIRGINIANS  245 

of  two  kinds  of  government,  operating  at  one  and  the 
same  time,  upon  the  same  individuals,  harmonious  with 
each  other,  but  each  supreme  in  its  own  sphere.  Such 
is  the  fundamental  conception  of  our  partly  Federal, 
partly  National  Government,  which  appears  throughout 
the  Virginia  Plan,  as  well  as  in  the  constitution  which 
grew  out  of  it."1 

Upon  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  and  the  creation 
of  the  office  of  President,  George  Washington  was  called 
to  the  discharge  of  its  novel  and  important  duties,  and 
under  his  leadership,  the  Republic  successfully  met  the 
difficulties  and  dangers  of  its  new  career. 

Only  less  important  to  the  National  life  than  the  adminis 
tration  of  Washington,  was  that  of  Jefferson  who  demon 
strated  by  his  rule  that  the  ideals  of  liberty  were  not 
incompatible  with  the  reign  of  law.  Under  his  leadership 
the  empire  of  Louisiana  extending  from  the  Gulf  to  the 
Canadian  line  was  acquired,  and  the  muniments  of  our 
title  established  by  the  explorations  of  Meriwether  Lewis 
and  William  Clark,  two  more  of  Virginia's  sons. 

Under  President  Madison,  the  second  war  with  Great 
Britain  was  fought,  which  established  the  independence 
of  America  upon  the  seas.  Under  President  Monroe,  the 
territory  of  the  Floridas  was  acquired,  and  the  Doctrine 
promulgated  under  which  two  continents  were  dedicated  to 
democratic  development  unawed  by  the  governments  of 
the  Old  World. 

Virginia  gave  to  the  Union  John  Marshall,  "second  to 
none  among  the  most  illustrious  jurists  of  the  English  race, " 
according  to  John  Fiske.  For  thirty-five  years,  the  great 
Chief  Justice  presided  over  the  Supreme  Court,  and  by  his 
decisions  performed  a  work  of  incomparable  importance  in 

^Critical  Period  of  American  History,  Fiske,  p.  239. 


246          VIRGINIA'S  DEVOTION  TO  THE  UNION 

establishing  the  position  and  power  of  that  tribunal,  and 
in  welding  in  more  indissoluble  bonds  the  Union  itself. 

Under  President  Tyler,  the  empire  of  Texas  was  brought 
into  the  Union.  Scott  and  Taylor  led  the  armies  of  the 
Republic  in  the  war  with  Mexico,  while  associated  with 
them  was  a  brilliant  group  of  younger  Virginians, — Lee, 
Jackson,  Johnston,  Thomas,  and  others  who,  by  their 
bravery  and  leadership,  added  fresh  lustre  to  American 
arms. 

Where  shall  we  look  for  the  ideals  of  the  Republic  if  not 
to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Ordinance  of  1787, 
and  the  Constitution,  great  canons  of  liberty  and  union — 
with  which  the  names  of  Virginia  statesmen  are  pre 
eminently  associated?  To  these  may  be  added  Virginia's 
epoch-making  Statute  for  Religious  Freedom  and  her  Bill 
of  Rights,  which  latter  is  declared  by  Mr.  Bancroft  to  be, 
"the  groundwork  of  American  institutions."1 

While  many  of  her  sister  states  had  surpassed  Virginia 
in  contributions  to  art,  literature,  and  science,  in  com 
mercial  and  industrial  development,  her  triumphs  had  been 
in  the  realm  of  statecraft  and  jurisprudence,  on  the  field 
of  battle,  and  amid  the  dangers  of  the  frontier.  The 
achievements  of  her  statesmen,  jurists,  soldiers  and  pioneers 
marked  the  measure  of  her  pride  and  the  summit  of  her 
fame.  The  making  of  the  Union,  maintaining  its  ideals, 
and  extending  its  limits,  were  the  noblest  monuments  of 
their  labors.  By  statues  and  memorials,  by  song  and 
story,  by  the  lawmaker's  work  and  the  orator's  appeal, 
Virginians  of  every  generation  were  stimulated  to  revere 
the  principles  and  safeguard  the  achievements  of  these 
illustrious  men. 

^History  of  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  IV,  p.  416. 


VIRGINIA'S  DEVOTION  TO  THE  UNION          247 

With  such  a  past,  and  with  such  a  part  in  making  the 
Union,  will  it  be  supposed  that  the  Virginians  of  1861 
pressed  forward  with  wanton  hands  to  destroy  the  fabric 
of  the  Republic  and  thwart  the  ideals  of  its  founders? 
May  we  not  believe  that  the  true  sentiments  of  the  dominant 
element  of  the  state  were  voiced  in  the  words  of  John 
Janney,  who,  on  assuming  the  Presidency  of  the  Virginia 
Convention  of  1861,  said: 

"Causes  which  have  passed,  and  are  daily  passing 
into  history,  which  will  set  its  seal  upon  them,  but  which 
I  do  not  mean  to  review,  have  brought  the  constitution 
and  the  Union  into  imminent  peril,  and  Virginia  has  come 
to  the  rescue.  It  is  what  the  whole  country  expected  of 
her.  Her  pride  as  well  as  her  patriotism,  her  interest  as 
well  as  her  honor,  called  upon  her  with  an  emphasis  she 
could  not  disregard  to  save  the  monuments  of  her  own 
glory,  "i 

Journal  of  Virginia  Convention  of  1861,  p.  9. 


XXXVI 

EFFORTS  TO  PROMOTE  RECONCILIATION  AND  UNION 

As  Virginia  had  borne  a  conspicuous  part  in  founding 
the  Union,  so,  when  civil  dissensions  arose  and  its  integrity 
was  threatened,  she  was  foremost  in  mediation.  At  no 
time  were  her  efforts  more  earnest  than  in  the  troublous 
days  of  1860-61.  James  Ford  Rhodes  says:  "Virginia, 
whose  share  in  forming  the  Union  had  been  greater  than 
that  of  any  other  one  state,  was  loath  to  see  that  great  work 
shattered,  and  now  made  a  supreme  effort  to  save  it."1 

Following  the  announcement  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election, 
South  Carolina  seceded  and  in  all  the  other  Cotton  States 
the  manifestations  of  popular  sentiment  foreshadowed  like 
action.  The  people  of  Virginia,  though  profoundly  moved 
by  the  considerations  which  influenced  their  brethren  of 
the  far  South,  were  yet  opposed  to  secession,  and  proceeded 
to  put  forth  every  effort  to  avert  war,  and  bring  back  the 
Cotton  States  to  their  former  allegiance. 

On  the  7th  of  January,  1861,  her  General  Assembly  was 
called  in  extra  session.  Governor  Letcher's  message  set 
forth  the  dangers  and  problems  which  confronted  the  state 
and  nation.  "The  condition  of  our  country  at  this  time," 
he  declared,  "excites  the  most  serious  fears  for  the  per 
petuation  of  the  Union.  .  .  .  Surely  no  people  have  been 
blessed  as  we  have  been,  and  it  is  melancholy  to  think  that 
all  is  now  about  to  be  sacrificed  on  the  Altar  of  Passion. 
If  the  judgments  of  men  were  consulted,  if  the  admonitions 

^History  of  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  290. 
248 


GOVERNOR  LETCHER'S  MESSAGE,   1861  249 

of  their  consciences  were  respected,  the  Union  would  yet 
be  saved  from  overthrow." 

While  thus  expressing  devotion  to  the  Union,  he  yet  pro 
claimed  his  belief  in  the  legal  right  of  secession.  He 
deplored  the  precipitate  action  of  South  Carolina,  declaring 
that  in  a  movement  "  involving  consequences  so  serious  to 
all  the  slaveholding  states,  no  one  state  should  have  ven 
tured  to  move  without  first  having  given  timely  notice  to 
the  others  of  her  purpose."  He  reviewed  at  length  the 
action  of  that  great  element  of  the  Northern  people,  which, 
for  years,  had  been  unceasing  in  their  assaults  upon  the 
constitutional  rights  of  the  South  on  the  questions  growing 
out  of  the  existence  of  slavery.  He  alluded  to  the  recent 
messages  of  the  Governors  of  South  Carolina  and  Mississippi 
in  which  the  Border  States  were  referred  to  in  no  over- 
friendly  terms,  and  with  suggestions  of  legislative  enact 
ments  hostile  to  their  interests.  "While  disavowing,"  he 
declared,  "any  unkind  feeling  toward  South  Carolina  and 
Mississippi,  I  must  still  say  that  I  will  resist  the  coercion  of 
Virginia  in  the  adoption  of  a  line  of  policy  whenever  the 
attempt  is  made  by  Northern  or  Southern  States."  He 
expressed  his  opposition  to  the  plan  for  calling  a  state  con 
vention  at  that  time,  suggesting  that  instead  the  General 
Assembly  should  appoint  commissioners  to  visit  the  Legis 
latures  of  such  Northern  States  as  had  passed  laws  repug 
nant  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  respectfully  urge  their 
immediate  repeal;  and  that  in  like  manner  commissioners 
be  sent  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  slaveholding  states  to 
ascertain  the  extent  and  character  of  their  demands  and 
the  action  deemed  necessary  for  the  protection  of  their 
rights  and  interests.1 

1 Journal  of  Virginia  House  of  Delegates,  Extra  Session,  1861, 
Document  No.  1. 


250        ACTION  OF  VIRGINIA  LEGISLATURE,   1861 

The  General  Assembly  thereupon  adopted  a  series  of 
resolutions  inviting  all  such  states  of  the  Union  "as  are 
willing  to  unite  with  Virginia  in  an  earnest  effort  to  adjust 
the  present  unhappy  controversies  ...  to  appoint  com 
missioners  to  meet  on  the  fourth  day  of  February  next,  in 
the  City  of  Washington,  similar  commissioners  appointed 
by  Virginia/'  The  resolutions  also  provided  for  the 
immediate  appointment  of  Ex-President  John  Tyler  as  a 
Commissioner  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and 
Judge  John  Robertson  as  a  Commissioner  to  the  State  of 
South  Carolina  and  to  any  other  state  that  had  seceded  or 
might  secede,  to  urge  upon  them  to  abstain  from  any  and 
all  acts  calculated  to  produce  a  collision  of  arms  between 
such  states  and  the  government  of  the  United  States,  pend 
ing  the  proceedings  contemplated  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  Virginia. 

Ex-President  John  Tyler,  William  C.  Rives,  Judge  John 
W.  Brokenbrough,  George  W.  Summers  and  James  A.  Sed- 
don  were  appointed  Commissioners  from  Virginia  to  the 
Washington  Conference — which  became  known  in  history  as 
the  Peace  Conference. 

The  sentiments  which  prompted  this  movement  are 
doubtless  truly  expressed  in  the  preamble  to  the  resolutions 
which  declares: 

"Whereas,  it  is  the  deliberate  opinion  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  Virginia  that  unless  the  unhappy  controversy 
which  now  divides  the  states  of  this  Confederacy  shall  be 
satisfactorily  adjusted,  a  permanent  dissolution  of  the 
Union  is  inevitable,  and  the  General  Assembly  is  desirous 
of  employing  every  reasonable  means  to  avert  so  dire  a 
calamity,"  etc. 

Both  Houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  however,  adopted 
by  practically  unanimous  votes  resolutions  declaring  that 


THE  PEACE  CONFERENCE  AT  WASHINGTON      251 

the  Union,  having  been  formed  by  the  consent  of  the  states, 
it  was  repugnant  to  Republican  institutions  to  maintain  it 
by  force;  that  the  government  of  the  Union  had  no  right 
to  make  war  upon  "any  of  the  states  which  had  been  its 
constituent  members";  and  that  with  respect  to  states 
which  have  withdrawn  or  may  withdraw  from  the  Union, 
"we  are  unalterably  opposed  to  any  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  Federal  Government  to  coerce  the  same  into  re 
union  or  submission  and  that  we  will  resist  the  same  by  all 
means  in  our  power/71 

To  the  call  of  Virginia,  twenty  states  responded;'  and 
their  representatives  met  on  the  4th  day  of  February, 
1861,  in  the  City  of  Washington.  It  was  a  notable  gather 
ing.  Among  the  prominent  members  were  William  P. 
Fessenden  and  Lot  M.  Morrill,  of  Maine;  George  S.  Bout- 
well  and  Charles  Allen,  of  Massachusetts;  David  Dudley 
Field,  Erastus  Corning,  William  E.  Dodge  and  General 
John  E.  Wool,  of  New  York;  Robert  F.  Stockton  and 
Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen,  of  New  Jersey;  David  Wilmot 
and  A.  W.  Loomis  of  Pennsylvania;  Reverdy  Johnson,  of 
Maryland;  Thomas  Ruffin  and  J.  M.  Morehead,  of  North 
Carolina;  James  Guthrie  and  Charles  A.  Wicliffe,  of  Ken 
tucky;  Salmon  P.  Chase,  William  S.  Groesbeck  and  Thomas 
Ewing,  of  Ohio;  Caleb  B.  Smith,  of  Indiana,  and  James 
Harlan,  of  Iowa. 

Mr.  Rhodes  says:  "The  historical  significance  of  the 
Peace  Convention  consists  in  the  evidence  it  affords  of  the 
attachment  of  the  Border  Slave  States  to  the  Union."2 


resolutions  were  adopted  in  the  House  of  Delegates  by  a 
vote  of  one  hundred  and  twelve  ayes  to  five  noes.      See  Journal 
Virginia  House  of  Delegates,  Extra  Session,  1861,  p.  10.     In  the 
Senate  only  one  vote  was  recorded  against  their  adoption. 
^History  of  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  307. 


252  VIEWS  OF  TYLER  AND   RIVES 

Some  evidence  of  the  spirit  which  animated  the  people 
of  Virginia  may  be  gathered  from  the  speeches  of  her 
delegates.  John  Tyler,  on  assuming  the  Presidency  of 
the  body,  spoke  in  part  as  follows: 

"The  voice  of  Virginia  has  invited  her  co-states  to  meet 
her  in  council.  In  the  initiation  of  this  Government 
that  same  voice  was  heard  and  complied  with,  and  the 
resulting  seventy-odd  years  have  fully  attested  the  wisdom 
of  the  decision  then  adopted.  Is  the  urgency  of  her  call 
less  great  than  it  was  then?  Our  God-like  fathers  created! 
We  have  to  preserve.  They  have  built  up  through  their 
wisdom  and  patriotism  monuments  which  have  eternized 
their  names.  You  have  before  you,  gentlemen,  a  task 
equally  grand,  equally  sublime,  quite  as  full  of  glory  and 
immortality;  you  have  to  snatch  from  ruin  a  grand  and 
glorious  Confederation,  to  preserve  the  Government  and 
to  renew  and  invigorate  the  constitution.  If  you  reach 
the  height  of  this  great  occasion  your  children's  children 
will  rise  up  and  call  you  blessed."1 

In  the  course  of  one  of  his  speeches,  Ex-Senator  Rives 
said: 

"  Mr.  President,  the  position  of  Virginia  must  be  under 
stood  and  appreciated.  She  is  just  now  the  neutral 
ground  between  two  embattled  legions — between  two 
angry,  excited  and  hostile  portions  of  the  Union.  Some 
thing  must  be  done  to  save  the  country,  to  allay  these 
apprehensions,  to  restore  a  broken  confidence.  Virginia 
steps  in  to  arrest  the  progress  of  the  country  on  its  way 
to  ruin.  .  .  .  Sir,  I  have  had  some  experience  in  revolu 
tions  in  another  hemisphere,  in  revolutions  produced  by 
the  same  causes  that  are  now  operating  among  us.  ... 
I  have  seen  the  pavements  of  Paris  covered  and  the  gutters 
running  with  fraternal  blood.  God  forbid  I  should  see 

^Proceedings  of  Peace  Convention,  Crittenden,  p.  14. 


OPPOSITION  TO  PEACE  CONFERENCE  253 

this  horrid  picture  repeated  in  my  own  country — and  yet 
it  will  be,  sir!  if  we  listen  to  the  counsel  urged  here."1 

George  W.  Summers,  another  of  the  Virginia  delegates, 
opened  his  speech  to  the  conference  in  these  words: 

"Mr.  President!  my  heart  is  full!  I  cannot  approach 
the  great  issues  with  which  we  are  dealing,  with  becom 
ing  coolness  and  deliberation!  Sir!  I  love  this  Union. 
The  man  does  not  live  who  entertains  a  higher  respect  for 
this  government  than  I  do.  I  know  its  history — I  know 
how  it  was  established.  There  is  not  an  incident  in  its 
history  that  is  not  precious  to  me.  I  do  not  wish  to  survive 
its  dissolution/72 

In  contrast  to  these  pathetic  appeals  of  Virginia's  repre 
sentatives  were  expressions  coming  from  many  of  her 
sister  states  North  and  South.  None  of  the  seven  Cotton 
States  sent  delegates  to  the  convention.  South  Carolina 
declared  that  "the  separation  of  that  state  was  final  and 
that  she  had  no  further  interest  in  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States."3 

The  well-known  letter  of  Senator  Zachariah  Chandler,  of 
Michigan,  written  from  Washington  during  the  session  of 
the  convention  to  the'  Governor  of  his  state,  is  represen 
tative  of  the  spirit  which  dominated  one  element  of  the 
Northern  people. 

Washington,  February  11,  1861. 
My  dear  Governor: 

Governor  Bingham  and  myself  telegraphed  you  on 
Saturday,  at  the  request  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York, 
to  send  delegates  to  the  Peace,  or  Compromise  Congress. 
They  admit  that  we  were  right  and  that  they  were  wrong; 

1  Proceedings  of  Peace  Convention,  Crittenden,  p.  135. 

2Idem,  p.  151. 

3Causes  of  Civil  War,  Chadwick,  p.  270. 


254  OPPOSITION  TO  PEACE  CONFERENCE 

that  no  Republican  state  should  have  sent  delegates;  but 
they  are  here  and  cannot  get  away.  Ohio,  Indiana,  Rhode 
Island  are  caving  in  and  there  is  danger  of  Illinois;  and 
now  they  beg  us,  for  God's  sake,  to  come  to  their  rescue 
and  save  the  Republican  Party  from  rupture.  The  whole 
thing  was  gotten  up  against  my  judgment  and  advice  and 
will  end  in  thin  smoke.  Still,  I  hope  as  a  matter  of  courtesy 
to  some  of  our  erring  brethren  that  you  will  send  the 
delegates. 

Truly  your  friend, 

Z.  CHANDLER. 
His  Excellency,  Austin  Blair. 

P.  S.  Some  of  the  manufacturing  states  think  that  a 
fight  would  be  awful.  Without  a  little  blood-letting  this 
Union  will  not,  in  my  estimation,  be  worth  a  rush."1 

The  fact  that  the  deliberations  of  the  Peace  Conference 
proved  unavailing  to  arrest  the  movement  towards  dis 
union  and  civil  war  is  no  indication  that  the  motives 
which  impelled  the  people  of  Virginia  to  call  their  country 
men  to  council  were  not  those  of  the  highest  patriotism. 

^Proceedings  of  Peace  Convention,  1861,  p.  468,  Crittenden. 


XXXVII 

THE  PEOPLE  OF  VIRGINIA  DECLARE  FOR  UNION 

THE  General  Assembly  which  issued  the  call  for  the 
Peace  Conference  also  adopted  a  joint  resolution  providing 
for  a  convention  in  Virginia  to  take  under  consideration 
the  problems  and  dangers  of  the  hour.  By  the  terms  of 
this  act,  the  people  of  Virginia  were  to  select  delegates  to 
the  convention,  and  were  to  declare  by  a  separate  vote 
whether  the  action  of  that  body  should  be  binding  upon 
the  commonwealth,  or  whether  it  should  be  referred  back 
to  them  for  ratification  or  rejection. 

Under  this  call,  the  people  of  Virginia  repaired  to  the 
polls  on  the  4th  of  February,  1861.  Seldom,  if  ever,  in 
her  history  had  they  been  summoned  to  an  election  so 
fraught  with  importance  to  the  state  and  the  Union. 
The  seven  Cotton  States  had  already  seceded,  and  in  not 
one  where  the  question  had  been  formally  acted  upon 
had  there  been  a  decision  against  secession.  Only  two 
days  before,  February  2d,  the  great  State  of  Texas  had 
withdrawn  from  the  Union.  Had  Virginia  at  that  critical 
moment  declared  for  a  like  policy,  it  is  almost  certain 
that  the  remaining  Southern  States  would  have  followed 
her  example.  In  such  an  event,  President  Lincoln  would 
on  the  day  of  his  inauguration  have  found  the  Capital  of 
the  Union  encompassed  by  the  States  of  Virginia  and 
Maryland,  both  members  of  the  new  Confederation. 

With  results  so  important  and  far  reaching  to  the  Union 
dependent  upon  her  action,  the  election  in  Virginia  was 

255 


256  UNION  VICTORY  IN  VIRGINIA,  1861 

held.  Opposing  candidates  presented  themselves  for  the 
suffrages  of  the  people  in  each  of  the  one  hundred  and 
fifty-two  districts;  unconditional  Secessionists,  uncondi 
tional  Union  men  and  men  opposed  to  secession  and  favor 
able  to  the  Union,  provided  the  authorities  of  the  latter 
did  not  resort  to  force  to  bring  back  the  states  which  had 
seceded.  From  the  Ohio  River  to  the  sea,  from  North 
Carolina  to  the  Pennsylvania  line,  the  people  of  the  com 
monwealth  were  stirred  by  the  fervor  of  the  campaign 
and  the  magnitude  of  the  issues  upon  which  they  were 
called  to  pass. 

The  returns  from  the  ballot  box  showed  that  a  large 
majority  of  the  delegates  elected  were  opposed  to  Virginia's 
secession,  and  by  a  vote  of  100,536  to  45,161,  the  people 
commanded  that  the  findings  of  the  Convention  should 
be  submitted  to  them  for  ratification  or  rejection. 

The  result  of  this  election  was  not  only  of  the  greatest 
importance  to  the  Union,  but  it  was  a  formal  declaration 
to  the  world  that  Virginia,  on  the  issues  as  then  made  up, 
refused  to  secede. 

"Thus  be  it  always  remembered,"  says  Charles  Francis 
Adams,  "Virginia  did  not  take  its  place  in  the  secession 
movement  because  of  the  election  of  an  anti-slavery 
President.  It  did  not  raise  its  hand  against  the  National 
Government  from  mere  love  of  any  peculiar  institution, 
or  a  wish  to  protect  or  perpetuate  it.  It  refused  to  be 
precipitated  into  a  civil  convulsion;  and  its  refusal  was 
of  vital  moment.  The  ground  of  Virginia's  final  action 
was  of  wholly  another  nature,  and  of  a  nature  far  more 
creditable."1 

The  importance  of  Virginia's  position  was  well  ap 
preciated,  both  by  the  friends  of  the  Union  and  by  the 

lLee  at  Appomattox  and  other  Papers,  Adams,  p.  403. 


EFFECTS  OF  UNION  VICTORY  IN  VIRGINIA     257 

advocates  of  secession.  On  the  day  before  the  election, 
William  H.  Seward  wrote  from  Washington:  "The  elec 
tion  to-morrow  probably  determines  whether  all  the  slave 
states  will  take  the  attitude  of  disunion.  Everybody 
around  me  thinks  that  that  will  make  the  separation 
irretrievable  and  involve  us  in  a  flagrant  civil  war.  Prac 
tically  everybody  will  despair."  A  day  or  two  later,  he 
wrote  that  the  result  of  the  Virginia  election  had  come 
"like  a  gleam  of  sunshine  in  a  storm/'  and  that  "at  least 
the  danger  of  conflict,  here  or  elsewhere,  before  the  4th 
of  March  has  been  averted."1 

Charles  Francis  Adams  has  placed  upon  record  the 
impressions  of  the  hour. 

"Though  over  forty  years  ago,  I  well  remember  that 
day — gray,  overcast,  wintry — which  succeeded  the  Vir 
ginia  election.  Then  living  in  Boston,  a  young  man  of 
twenty-five,  I  shared — as  who  did  not — in  the  common 
deep  depression  and  intense  anxiety." 

After  describing  the  first  receipt  of  news  from  the 
election,  Mr.  Adams  adds:  "Virginia,  speaking  against 
secession,  had  emitted  no  uncertain  sound.  It  was  as  if 
a  weight  had  been  taken  off  the  mind  of  every  one.  The 
tide  seemed  turned  at  last."2 

James  Ford  Rhodes  says: 

"The  election  in  Virginia  for  members  of  her  State 
Convention  had  much  significance.  The  one  hundred  and 
fifty-two  delegates  chosen  were,  with  substantial  correct 
ness,  classed  as  thirty  so-called  Secessionists,  twenty 
Douglas  men  and  one  hundred  and  two  Whigs,  which 
proves,  asserted  the  Richmond  Whig,  a  journal  which 

lLee  at  Appomattox  and  Other  Papers,  Adams,  p.  403. 
2Idem,  p.  402. 


258    LEADERS  IN  VIRGINIA  CONVENTION  OF   1861 

argued  strenuously  for  delay,  that  'the  Conservative 
victory  in  Virginia  is  perfectly  overwhelming/  the  pre- 
cipitators  having  sustained '  a  Waterloo  defeat/  "x 

The  Convention  assembled  the  13th  of  February,  and 
the  friends  of  the  Union  elected  to  its  presidency  the 
venerable  John  Janney.  The  spirit  and  purpose  of  this 
dominant  element  may  be  gathered  from  a  few  extracts 
in  the  speech  of  President  Janney,  on  assuming  his  position : 

"It  is  now  seventy-three  years  since  a  convention  of 
the  people  of  Virginia  was  assembled  in  this  hall  to  ratify 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  one  of  the  chief 
objects  of  which  was  to  consolidate — not  the  government 
but  the  union  of  the  states.  Causes  which  have  passed, 
and  are  daily  passing,  into  history  which  will  set  its  seal 
upon  them,  but  which  I  do  not  mean  to  review,  have 
brought  the  constitution  and  the  Union  into  imminent 
peril,  and  Virginia  has  come  to  the  rescue.  It  is  what  the 
whole  country  expected  of  her.  Her  pride,  as  well  as  her 
patriotism;  her  interest,  as  well  as  her  honor,  called  upon 
her  with  an  emphasis  she  could  not  disregard,  to  save 
the  monuments  of  her  own  glory.  .  .  . 

"Gentlemen,  there  is  a  flag  which  for  nearly  a  century 
has  been  borne  in  triumph  through  the  battle  and  the 
breeze  and  which  now  floats  over  this  Capitol,  on  which 
there  is  a  star  representing  this  ancient  commonwealth, 
and  my  earnest  prayer,  in  which  I  know  every  member 
of  this  body  will  cordially  unite,  is  that  it  may  remain 
there  forever,  provided  always  that  its  lustre  is  untar 
nished.  ...  Is  it  too  much  to  hope  that  we,  and  others 
who  are  engaged  in  the  work  of  peace  and  conciliation, 
may  so  solve  the  problems  which  now  perplex  us  as  to  win 
back  our  sisters  of  the  South,  who,  for  what  they  deem 
sufficient  cause,  have  wandered  from  their  old  orbits?"2 

lHistory  of  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  309. 
^Journal  of  Virginia  Convention,  1861,  p.  8. 


QUESTION  OF  COERCING  COTTON  STATES       259 

From  the  day  of  its  opening  session  down  to  the  17th  of 
April,  the  advocates  of  secession  and  union  confronted 
each  other  in  debate.  Prominent  among  the  Secessionists 
were  Robert  L.  Montague,  Lewis  E.  Harvie,  James  P.  Hoi- 
combe,  John  Goode  and  Jeremiah  Morton.  To  this 
number  should  be  added  Ex-President  John  Tyler,  who, 
upon  the  failure  of  the  Peace  Conference  to  accomplish 
its  mission,  advocated  the  secession  of  Virginia. 

Foremost  among  the  Union  men  were  John  B.  Baldwin, 
George  W.  Summers,  Jubal  A.  Early,  Alexander  H.  H. 
Stuart,  John  S.  Carlile,  Williams  C.  Wickham,  and  the 
President,  John  Janney.  Among  other  prominent  members 
of  the  Convention  were  William  Ballard  Preston,  Henry  A. 
Wise,  Robert  Y.  Conrad,  James  C.  Bruce,  Eppa  Hunton, 
Robert  E.  Scott,  Allen  T.  Caperton,  John  Echols,  Waitman 
T.  Willey,  George  W.  Randolph  and  William  L.  Goggin. 

The  most  potent  factor  in  determining  the  action  of  the 
Convention  would  be  the  policy  of  the  incoming  Federal 
administration  with  respect  to  the  states  which  had 
seceded.  While  a  large  majority  of  the  Virginia  people 
at  the  recent  election  had  declared  against  the  secession 
of  their  state,  yet  the  organization  of  the  Southern  Con 
federacy  had  precipitated  a  problem  of  extreme  delicacy 
and  danger.  What  would  be  the  attitude  of  the  Federal 
Government  towards  these  states?  If  negotiations  for 
their  return  proved  unavailing,  would  they  be  permitted 
to  enjoy  in  peace  their  new-found  independence,  or  would 
the  Federal  Government  seek  to  establish  its  supremacy 
over  them  by  force  of  arms? 

Charles  Francis  Adams  alluding  to  the  crisis,  says:  "So 
now  the  issue  shifted.  It  became  a  question  not  of  slavery, 
or  of  the  wisdom,  or  even  the  expediency  of  secession, 
but  of  the  right  of  the  National  Government  to  coerce  a 


260         QUESTION  OF  COERCING  COTTON  STATES 

sovereign  state.  This,  at  the  time,  was  well  understood."1 
No  one  acquainted  with  the  historic  position  of  Virginia 
could  doubt  what  her  action  would  be  if  called  to  decide 
for  or  against  coercion.  Would  the  alternative  be  pre 
sented?  President  Buchanan,  while  denying  the  con 
stitutional  right  of  secession,  had  submitted  to  Congress 
the  problem  of  dealing  with  the  states  which  had  seceded 
and  Congress  had  taken  no  action.  What  would  be 
President  Lincoln's  position?  To  his  forthcoming  in 
augural  address,  the  country  looked  for  a  definite  declara 
tion  of  his  policy  and  by  that  declaration  the  course  of 
Virginia  would  be  determined. 

lLee  at  Appomattox  and  Other  Papers,  Adams,  p.  404. 


PART  IV 

THE  ATTEMPT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT 

TO  COERCE  THE  COTTON  STATES— THE 

PROXIMATE  CAUSE  OF  VIRGINIA'S 

SECESSION 


XXXVIII 

THE  COERCION  OF  THE  COTTON  STATES — VIRGINIA'S 
POSITION 

PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  first  inaugural  address  may  be 
safely  reckoned  among  the  most  notable  of  American  state 
papers,both  for  the  purity  of  diction  and  the  earnest  patri 
otism  which  pervade  it.  With  a  spirit  of  fraternalism 
appealing  and  pathetic,  he  called  upon  his  countrymen  to 
turn  from  discord  and  separation  to  a  new  lease  of  brother 
hood  and  a  revival  of  devotion  to  the  Republic  consecrated 
by  the  sacrifices  and  labors  of  their  fathers.  The  address 
gave  assurance  that  the  Federal  Government  would  respect 
the  rights  of  the  states  and  individuals  in  regard  to  slavery, 
and  that  no  interest  or  section  would  be  disturbed  in  any 
constitutional  right  by  the  incoming  administration.  Upon 
the  great  point,  however,  as  to  the  policy  of  the  Federal 
Government  in  regard  to  coercing  the  states  which  had 
seceded,  the  address  was  held  by  many  to  be  fairly  sus 
ceptible  of  different  constructions.  Thus  the  President 
said: 

"  I,  therefore,  consider  that  in  view  of  the  constitution 
and  the  laws,  the  Union  is  unbroken,  and  to  the  extent  of 
my  ability  I  shall  take  care,  as  the  constitution  itself 
expressly  enjoins  upon  me,  that  the  laws  of  the  Union  be 
faithfully  executed  in  all  the  states.  Doing  this  I  deem 
to  be  a  simple  duty  on  my  part,  and  I  shall  perform  it  so  far 
as  practicable  unless  my  rightful  masters,  the  American 
People,  shall  withhold  the  requisite  means,  or  in  some 
authoritative  manner  direct  the  contrary." 

263 


264       PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  FIRST  INAUGURAL 

It  must  be  remembered  that  at  the  time  these  words  were 
uttered  the  seven  Cotton  States  had  withdrawn  from  the 
Union;  had  organized  the  Southern  Confederacy,  and  that 
in  all  the  vast  region  from  North  Carolina  to  the  Rio 
Grande,  the  Confederacy's  authority  was  recognized,  except 
at  Fort  Sumter  and  three  or  four  like  forts  where  the  flag 
of  the  Union  still  waved.  Mr.  Lincoln's  declaration, 
therefore,  that  these  states  were  still  in  the  Union  and 
that  he  intended  to  enforce  the  execution  of  its  laws 
within  their  borders  was  accepted  in  many  quarters  as 
avowing  a  purpose  to  coerce  these  states  and  their  citizens 
into  a  recognition  of  its  j  urisdiction  and  authority.  Against 
this  construction  should  be  placed  other  extracts  from 
the  address.  Thus  he  said: 

"  The  power  confided  to  me  will  be  used  to  hold,  occupy 
and  possess  the  property  and  places  belonging  to  the 
Government  and  to  collect  the  duties  and  imposts;  but 
beyond  what  may  be  necessary  for  these  objects  there  will 
be  no  invasion,  no  using  of  force,  against  or  among  the 
people  anywhere.  Where  hostility  to  the  United  States 
in  any  interior  locality  shall  be  so  great  and  universal  as 
to  prevent  competent  resident  citizens  from  holding  the 
Federal  offices,  there  will  be  no  attempt  to  force  obnoxious 
strangers  among  the  people  for  that  object.  While  the 
strict  legal  right  may  exist  in  the  Government  to  enforce 
the  exercise  of  these  offices,  the  attempt  to  do  so  would 
be  so  irritating  and  so  nearly  impracticable  withal  that  I 
deem  it  better  to  forego  for  the  time  the  uses  of  such 
offices." 

The  declarations  of  President  Lincoln  were  received 
with  strongly  contrasted  feelings  by  the  three  elements 
which  constituted  the  membership  of  the  Virginia  Con 
vention.  The  Secessionists  hailed  his  position  as  fore 
shadowing  Federal  coercion  which  in  turn  would  compel 


VIEWS  OF  MEMBERS  OF  CONVENTION          265 

Virginia's  withdrawal  from  the  Union.  The  uncondi 
tional  Union  men  accepted  his  views  as  the  logical  and 
necessary  avowals  of  his  constitutional  duty.  The  con 
ditional  Union  men,  while  denying  in  a  measure  the 
correctness  of  his  position,  both  from  a  constitutional 
and  ethical  standpoint,  were  yet  gratified  by  the  pacific 
spirit  of  his  address.  They  counselled  moderation  on  the 
part  of  the  Convention  and  clung  tenaciously  to  the  hope 
that  some  adjustment  might  be  perfected  between  the 
authorities  of  the  Union  and  those  of  the  seceded  states 
and  thus  the  alternative  of  submitting  to  coercion  or 
seceding  from  the  Union  might  never  be  presented  to  the 
people  of  Virginia.  This  last  element  held  the  balance  of 
power  in  the  Convention.  As  illustrating  their  position, 
it  may  be  well  to  insert  extracts  from  the  speeches  of  a  few 
of  their  representative  men. 

James  W.  Sheffey,  speaking  five  days  before  President 
Lincoln's  inauguration,  said: 

"We  love  the  Union,  but  we  cannot  see  it  maintained 
by  force.  They  say  the  Union  must  be  preserved — she 
can  only  be  preserved  through  fraternal  affection.  We 
must  take  our  place — we  can't  remain. neutral.  If  it  comes 
to  this  and  they  put  the  question  of  trying  force  on  the 
states  which  have  seceded,  we  must  go  out.  .  .  .  We  are 
waiting  to  see  what  will  be  defined  coercion.  We  wait 
to  see  what  action  the  new  President  will  take."1 

George  Baylor,  speaking  three  days  before  President 
Lincoln's  inauguration,  said:  "Secession  is  not  a  con 
stitutional  measure;  even  if  it  were,  we  should  delay 
before  using  it.  Let  us  stay  in  the  Union  where  we  have 
always  been.  Yet,  I  am  opposed  to  coercion."2 

'See  Richmond  Enquirer,  February  28th,  1861. 
'See  Richmond  Enquirer,  March  2d,  1861. 


266  VIEWS   OF  MEMBERS  OF  CONVENTION 

Thomas  Branch,  speaking  the  day  after  President  Lin 
coln's  inaugural  address,  said: 

"  My  heart  has  been  saddened  and  every  patriotic  heart 
should  be  saddened,  and  every  Christian  voice  raised  to 
heaven  in  this  time  of  our  trial.  After  the  reception  of 
Mr.  Lincoln's  inaugural,  I  saw  some  gentlemen  rejoicing 
in  the  hotels.  Rejoicing  for  what,  sir?  For  plunging 
ourselves  and  our  families,  our  wives  and  children  in 
civil  war?  I  pray  that  I  may  never  rejoice  at  such  a 
state  of  things.  I  pray  that  I  may  never  have  to  march 
to  battle  to  front  my  enemies.  But  I  came  here  to  defend 
the  rights  of  Virginia  and  I  mean  to  do  it  at  all  hazards; 
and  if  we  must  go  to  meet  our  enemies,  I  wish  to  go  with 
the  same  deliberation,  with  the  same  solemnity  that  I 
would  bend  the  knee  in  prayer  before  Almighty  God."1 

Jubal  A.  Early,  speaking  on  the  same  day,  said: 

"I  do  not  approve  of  the  inaugural  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
I  did  not  expect  to  be  able  to  endorse  his  policy  and  I 
did  not  think  there  was  a  member  of  this  Convention 
who  expected  to  endorse  it;  but,  sir,  I  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Halifax  and  the  gentleman  from  Prince  Edward, 
if  it  were  not  for  the  fact  that  six  or  seven  states  of  this 
Confederacy  have  seceded  from  this  Union,  if  the  declara 
tions  of  President  Lincoln  that  he  would  execute  the  laws 
in  all  the  states  would  not  have  been  hailed  throughout 
the  country  as  a  guarantee  that  he  would  perform  his 
duty,  and  that  we  should  have  peace  and  protection  for 
our  property  and  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  would  be 
faithfully  executed?  I  ask  why  is  it  that  we  are  placed 
in  this  perilous  condition?  And  if  it  is  not  solely  from 
the  action  of  these  states  that  have  seceded  from  the 
Union  without  having  consulted  our  views?"2 

George  W.  Brent,  speaking  on  the  8th  of  March,  said: 

*See  Richmond  Enquirer,  March  7th,  1861. 
2See  Richmond  Enquirer,  March  7th,  1861. 


VIEWS  OF  A  UNION  LEADER  267 

"Abolitionism  in  the  North,  trained  in  the  school  of 
Garrison  and  Phillips,  and  affecting  to  regard  the  con 
stitution  as  'a  league  with  Hell  and  a  covenant  with 
Death, '  has  with  a  steady  and  untiring  hate  sought  a 
disruption  of  this  Union,  as  the  best  and  surest  means 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
Southern  States.  .  .  .  South  Carolina  and  those  leading 
statesmen  of  the  South  who  have  been  educated  in  the 
philosophy  of  free  trade  have  likewise  with  unwearied  and 
constant  assiduity  pursued  their  schemes  of  disunion. 
Conscious  of  their  inability  to  effect  their  schemes  within 
the  Union  they  have  sought  a  disruption  of  the  states.  .  .  . 

"In  these  two  schools  of  political  philosophy,  Mr. 
President,  I  trace  all  the  evils  and  disastrous  troubles 
which  now  afflict  and  disturb  our  beloved  and  unhappy 
land.  .  .  .  Recognizing  as  I  have  always  done,  the  right 
of  a  state  to  secede,  to  judge  of  the  violation  of  its  rights 
and  to  appeal  to  its  own  mode  for  redress,  I  could  not  up 
hold  the  Federal  Government  in  any  attempt  to  coerce 
the  seceded  states  to  bring  them  back  in  the  Union. "l 

The  foregoing  extracts  give  some  fairly  accurate  idea 
of  the  position  of  those  members  of  the  Convention,  who, 
though  looked  upon  as  Union  men,  yet,  when  the  final 
test  came  after  President  Lincoln  called  for  troops,  voted 
for  secession.  How  close  in  sympathy  with  this  element 
were  many  of  the  Union  men  will  appear  from  the  follow 
ing  extract  from  a  speech  of  George  W.  Summers,  who 
upon  the  final  ballot  still  voted  against  secession: 

"Where  would  be  the  wisdom  of  passing  an  ordinance 
of  secession  in  the  face  of  the  known  sentiment  of  a  Vir 
ginia  constituency  ?  The  people  do  not  mean  to  adopt 
such  an  ordinance  until  every  available  measure  of  adjust 
ment  has  been  exhausted.  Come  on  then  with  your  plans; 
and  when  all  fail,  the  people  of  the  commonwealth  will  be 

^ee  Richmond  Enquirer,  March  9th,  1861. 


268  VIEWS  OF  A  UNION  LEADER 

united  from  one  end  to  the  other.  ...  No  enlightened 
statesmanship  can  compare  the  secession  of  states  by 
conventional  authority  with  insurrectionary  movements  in 
former  times.  It  is  a  new  and  unlocked  for  condition  of 
things.  I  am  in  favor  of  letting  the  seceded  states  alone. 
The  last  news  gives  encouragement  to  the  hope  that  the 
troops  will  soon  be  withdrawn  from  Fort  Sumter,  and  time 
will  bring  back  the  states  into  the  common  family.  It 
is  the  duty  of  Virginia  to  stand  by  the  Union  until  the 
performance  of  that  duty  becomes  impossible."1 

Richmond  Dispatch,  March  13th,  1861. 


XXXIX 

THE  CONTEST  IN  THE  VIRGINIA  CONVENTION  FOR  AND 
AGAINST  SECESSION 

FOR  nearly  a  month  and  a  half  after  President  Lincoln's 
inauguration,  the  struggle  in  the  Virginia  Convention 
between  the  advocates  and  opponents  of  secession  con 
tinued — a  contest  in  which  the  champions  of  opposing 
sides  living  beyond  the  state  sought  to  make  their  in 
fluence  effective.  Mr.  Rhodes  says :  "  It  is  easy  to  under 
stand  why  both  Davis  and  Lincoln  were  so  anxious  for 
the  adhesion  of  Virginia.  Her  worth  was  measured  by 
the  quality  as  well  as  the  number  of  her  men/'1 

Henry  Wilson  records  in  his  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave 
Power  in  America: 

"There  was  no  state  concerning  whose  course  there 
was  greater  doubt  or  more  anxious  solicitude  than  Virginia. 
Her  size,  position,  traditional  influence  and  past  leader 
ship,  with  the  knowledge  that  on  whichever  side  of  the 
scale  her  great  weight  should  be  thrown,  the  fortunes 
of  the  threatened  conflict  would  be  seriously  affected 
thereby,  intensified  the  anxiety  felt."2 

Commissioners  from  Alabama,  Mississippi  and  Louisiana 
appeared  before  the  Convention  on  different  occasions, 
and  with  impassioned  eloquence,  appealed  to  Virginia  to 
stand  with  her  sisters  of  the  South. 

^History  of  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  462. 
2The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in  America,  Wilson,  Vol. 
Ill,  p.  138. 

269 


270  COERCION  THE  PIVOTAL  FACT 

Mr.  Lincoln's  efforts  were  directed  through  prominent 
Union  members  of  the  Convention.  His  great  object  was 
to  secure  an  adjournment  sine  die  of  that  body,  without 
the  adoption  of  an  ordinance  of  secession,  and  without 
the  assurance  on  his  part  that  no  attempt  would  be  made 
to  coerce  the  Cotton  States.  John  B.  Baldwin,  a  leading 
Union  man  in  the  Convention,  was  one  of  its  members 
brought  into  conference  with  Mr.  Lincoln.  On  the  6th  of 
April,  1861,  Mr.  Baldwin  went  to  the  White  House,  where, 
in  response  to  the  President's  inquiries,  he  presented 
the  attitude  of  the  dominant  element  of  the  Virginia 
Convention,  and  heard  the  President's  appeals  and  reason 
ings  why  that  body  should  immediately  adjourn.  Mr. 
Baldwin  urged  upon  Mr.  Lincoln  the  wisdom  and  necessity 
of  proclaiming  to  the  world  that  the  Federal  Government 
had  no  intention  of  coercing  the  Cotton  States:  "Only 
give  this  assurance,"  said  Mr.  Baldwin,  "to  the  country 
in  a  proclamation  of  five  lines,  and  we  pledge  ourselves 
that  Virginia  will  stand  by  you  as  though  you  were  our 
own  Washington."1 

How  pivotal  was  the  position  of  the  Federal  Government 
with  reference  to  coercion  as  determining  Virginia's  action 
may  be  gathered  not  only  from  the  speeches  of  the  members 
of  her  Convention,  but  from  other  utterances  made  at  the 
time  by  her  leading  men. 

Matthew  F.  Maury,  under  date  of  March  4th, 
1861,  wrote:  "Virginia  is  not  at  all  ready  to  go 
out  of  this  Union;  and  she  is  not  going  out  for 
anything  that  is  likely  to  occur,  short  of  coercion — such 
is  my  opinion."2 

Colonel  Baldwin's  Interview  with  Mr.  Lincoln,  Dabney.  South- 
em  Historical  Papers,  Vol.  1,  p.  449. 

*Life  of  Matthew  F.  Maury,  Corbin,  p.  186. 


POSITION  OF  THE  CONVENTION  271 

George  W.  Summers,  under  date  of  March  19th,  1861, 
wrote  from  Richmond : 

"  The  removal  from  Fort  Sumter  (alluding  to  the  report 
that  it  would  be  evacuated)  acted  like  a  charm — it  gave 
us  great  strength.  A  reaction  is  going  on  in  this  state. 
The  outside  pressure  here  has  greatly  subsided.  We  are 
masters  of  our  position  here,  and  can  maintain  it,  if  left 
alone." 

The  same  day  he  wrote:  "What  delays  the  removal  of 
Major  Anderson  (the  officer  in  charge  of  Fort  Sumter)? 
Is  there  any  truth  in  the  suggestion  that  the  thing  is  not 
to  be  done  after  all?  This  would  ruin  us."1 

A  fairly  accurate  estimate  of  the  position  of  the  Virginia 
Convention  may  be  gathered  from  the  report  of  its  Com 
mittee  on  Federal  Relations,  and  the  tentative  action  of 
that  body  with  respect  to  the  same.  Soon  after  the 
organization  of  the  Convention,  this  committee,  consisting 
of  twenty-one  members,  was  appointed,  and  a  rule  adopted 
by  which  all  memorials  and  proposals  relating  to  the 
secession  of  the  state,  or  any  of  the  many  questions  involved 
in  the  pending  controversies,  should  be  referred  to  this 
committee  without  debate. 

On  the  16th  of  March,  the  report  of  the  committee  was 
taken  up  for  consideration  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
Convention.  The  majority  report  embodied  the  views 
of  some  two-thirds  of  the  membership  of  the  committee. 
There  were  several  individual  reports,  but  the  views  of  the 
minority  were  expressed  in  the  report  signed  by  Messrs. 
Montague,  Harvie  and  Williams,  which  simply  recom 
mended  the  immediate  adoption  of  an  ordinance  providing 
for  the  secession  of  the  state. 

^History  of  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  345. 


272  CONVENTION  DEFEATS  SECESSION 

The  report  of  the  majority  consisted  of  fourteen  sections, 
and  with  it  was  submitted  an  amendment  to  the  con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  which  the  states  of  the 
Union  were  requested  to  endorse  and  make  it  a  part  of 
that  instrument.  The  discussion  with  respect  to  this 
report  and  the  amendment  so  proposed,  continued  from 
the  16th  of  March  to  the  15th  of  April,  when  before  final 
and  complete  action  by  the  Convention,  the  secession  of 
the  state  was  precipitated,  under  the  conditions  here 
after  described. 

The  report  of  the  majority  is  a  lengthy  document  setting 
forth  the  attitude  of  Virginia  with  respect  to  the  character 
of  the  Federal  Government — the  rights  and  powers  of 
the  latter  in  the  territories,  and  over  the  forts,  arsenals, 
etc. — in  the  states  which  had  seceded,  and  all  the  many 
questions  growing  out  of  the  contest  over  slavery. 

The  maintenance  of  peace  was  declared  to  be  the  fore 
most  duty  of  the  hour.  "Above  all  things,  at  this  time, 
they  esteem  it  of  indispensable  necessity  to  maintain  the 
peace  of  the  country,  and  to  avoid  everything  calculated 
or  tending  to  produce  collision  and  bloodshed/7  said  the 
report. 

The  sixth  section  of  the  report  deplored  the  present 
"distracted  condition  of  the  country/'  and  expressed  the 
earnest  hope,  "That  an  adjustment  may  be  reached,  by 
which  the  Union  may  be  preserved  in  its  integrity;  and 
peace,  prosperity  and  fraternal  feeling  be  restored  through 
out  the  land." 

To  this  section  the  report  of  the  minority,  providing 
for  Virginia's  immediate  secession,  was  offered  as  a  sub 
stitute;  and  on  the  4th  of  April  the  latter  was  voted  down 
by  a  recorded  vote  of  forty-five  "Yeas"  to  eighty-nine 
"Nays,"  and  the  section  as  reported  by  the  majority 


AMENDMENT  PROPOSED  TO  CONSTITUTION     273 

adopted  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  four  "Yeas"  to 
thirty-one  "Nays."1 
The  eighth  section  declared: 

"The  people  of  Virginia  recognize  the  American  prin 
ciple,  that  government  is  founded  in  the  consent  of  the 
governed  .  .  .  and  they  will  never  consent  that  the  Federal 
power,  which  is  in  part  their  power,  shall  be  exerted  for 
the  purpose  of  subjugating  the  people  of  such  states  (the 
seceded  states)  to  the  Federal  authority." 

By  the  eleventh  section  appeal  is  made  to  the  states 
to  make  response  to  the  position  assumed  in  the  resolu 
tions  and  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  warning  given  that  unless 
satisfactory  assurances  were  forthcoming,  Virginia  would 
feel  compelled  to  resume  the  powers  granted  by  her  under 
the  constitution.  Time  and  again  the  report  declares 
that  "any  action  of  the  Federal  Government  tending  to 
produce  collision  of  forces,"  or  any  such  action  on  the  part 
of  the  seceded  or  confederated  states,  would  be  deemed 
offensive  to  the  state,  and  greatly  to  be  deplored. 

Accompanying  this  report,  as  above  indicated,  was 
an  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
the  most  important  features  of  which  dealt  with  the 
matter  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  the  institution  in 
the  states  where  it  was  established  by  law. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  the  amendment  provided  that 
in  all  the  territories  north  of  36  degrees  and  30  minutes, 
slavery  should  be  forever  prohibited,  and  in  all  the  terri 
tory  south  of  that  line,  slavery  was  to  be  permitted;  any 
territory,  however,  south  of  that  line  to  have  the  privilege 

^Journal  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  Virginia  Convention,  1861, 
pp.  31-43. 


274  PURPORT  OF  PROPOSED   AMENDMENT 

to  permit  or  deny  slavery  by  its  constitution  adopted  pre 
liminary  to  its  admission  as  a  state  into  the  Union. 

The  amendment  also  provided  that  no  territory  should 
thereafter  be  acquired  by  the  United  States  except  for 
naval  and  other  like  depots,  without  the  concurrence  of  a 
majority  of  the  Senators  from  the  states  which  "allowed 
involuntary  servitude  and  a  majority  of  the  Senators  from 
the  states  which  prohibited  that  relation." 

The  amendment  further  provided  that  Congress  should 
never  have  the  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  states 
where  it  existed,  nor  in  the  District  of  Columbia  without 
the  consent  of  Maryland  and  Virginia.  The  slave  trade 
in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  the  foreign  slave  trade 
were  forever  prohibited,  as  was  also  the  custom  of  bringing 
slaves  into  the  District  of  Columbia  for  the  purpose  of 
their  sale  or  distribution  to  other  parts  of  the  country. 
Congress  should  provide  for  the  payment  to  the  owner 
for  any  fugitive  slave  whose  return  was  prevented  by 
mobs  or  intimidation,  after  his  arrest;  and  the  elective 
franchise  and  the  right  to  hold  office  were  not  to  be  ac 
corded  persons  of  the  African  race.1 

While  no  final  action  had  been  taken  upon  this  report, 
with  the  accompanying  amendment,  by  the  Convention 
at  the  time  of  Virginia's  secession,  yet  the  votes  taken 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  various  paragraphs 
of  the  report  indicated  that  had  not  Virginia's  secession 
been  precipitated,  the  report  would  have  been  adopted 
by  the  body  in  substantially  the  form  in  which  it  came 
from  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations. 

What  would  have  been  the  attitude  of  the  other  states 

'See  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations,  with  ac 
companying  exhibits  in  the  Appendix  to  the  Journal  of  the  Virginia 
Convention,  1861. 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  AND  COERCION          275 

to  the  amendment  to  the  constitution  so  proposed,  must, 
of  course,  be  a  matter  of  conjecture,  but  the  adoption  by 
Congress,  though  controlled  by  the  Republican  Party,  of 
the  joint  resolution  providing  for  an  amendment  which 
should  forever  prohibit  Congress  from  interfering  with 
slavery  in  the  states  where  it  existed,  and  the  enactment 
of  the  statute  organizing  the  territories  of  Dakota,  Colorado 
and  Nevada  without  prohibition  as  to  slavery,  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  the  principal  provisions  of  the  amendment 
proposed  by  Virginia  would  have  met  the  approval  of  the 
requisite  number  of  the  states. 

As  above  indicated,  the  crucial  point,  with  the  group 
holding  the  balance  of  power  in  the  Convention,  was  the 
position  of  the  Federal  Government  upon  the  question  of 
coercing  the  Cotton  States.  The  employment  of  force 
to  compel  three  millions  of  people  to  submit  to  a  govern 
ment  not  of  their  own  choice,  was  at  war  with  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  and  repugnant  to  thousands  of  the 
American  people  North  as  well  as  South.  That  the 
Federal  Government  would  have  been  sustained  in  a  bald 
invasion  of  the  Southern  States,  may  well  be  questioned. 
The  situation,  however,  was  not  quite  so  embarrassing 
for  the  Government.  Many  of  these  states  had  formally 
ceded  to  the  Union  jurisdiction  over  parcels  of  land  within 
their  respective  limits,  upon  which  had  been  erected 
forts,  post  offices  or  custom  houses.  These  constituted 
coigns  of  vantage,  where  the  rights  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  were  of  a  dignity  higher,  or  at  least  more  manifest, 
to  the  popular  mind,  than  those  rights  which  obtained 
over  the  whole  area  of  the  states  or  their  citizens.  Thus 
in  the  great  drama  of  diplomacy  and  play  for  position 
which  preceded  the  Civil  War,  the  rights  of  the  nation 
and  of  the  states  in  these  forts  and  buildings  became 


276  FORT  SUMTER  AND  ITS  OCCUPATION 

matters  of  imminent  moment.  When  South  Carolina 
seceded,  Fort  Moultrie  was  occupied  by  Federal  soldiers. 
She  appointed  commissioners  to  negotiate  with  the  authori 
ties  at  Washington  for  the  withdrawal  of  the  troops,  and 
the  settlement  of  all  questions  with  respect  to  the  fort 
and  other  like  properties  in  the  state.  Later  these  troops 
were  transferred  by  the  Federal  authorities  to  Fort  Sumter. 
Upon  the  organization  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  com 
missioners  from  it  were  substituted  for  those  appointed 
by  South  Carolina.  President  Lincoln  refused  to  recognize 
the  Southern  Confederacy,  or  to  treat  with  its  repre 
sentatives.  Negotiations,  however,  semi-official  in  char 
acter,  were  instituted,  and  upon  the  reports  which  went 
out  from  these  conferences  men  gauged  the  chances  of 
peace  or  war.  If  Fort  Sumter  were  evacuated,  the  pros 
pects  of  peace  would  be  enhanced.  If  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  should  decide  to  hold  the  fort,  and  provision  and 
strengthen  its  garrison,  then  war  would  be  imminent. 
Upon  these  contingencies,  stocks  rose  and  fell,  and  the 
friends  of  peace  took  hope  or  lost  heart. 


XL 

THE  CONTEST  IN  THE  VIRGINIA  CONVENTION  FOR  AND 
AGAINST  SECESSION     (Concluded) 

ON  the  8th  of  April,  the  Virginia  Convention  adopted 
the  following  resolution: 

"WHEREAS,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Convention  the 
uncertainty  which  prevails  in  the  public  mind  as  to  the 
policy  which  the  Federal  Executive  intends  to  pursue 
towards  the  seceded  states  is  extremely  injurious  to  the 
industrial  and  commercial  interests  of  the  country,  tends 
to  keep  up  an  excitement  which  is  unfavorable  to  the 
adjustment  of  pending  difficulties,  and  threatens  a  dis 
turbance  of  the  public  peace;  therefore, 

"RESOLVED,  That  a  committee  of  three  delegates  be 
appointed  by  this  Convention  to  wait  upon  the  President 
of  the  United  States  and  present  to  him  this  Preamble 
and  Resolution,  and  respectfully  ask  him  to  communicate 
to  this  Convention  the  policy  which  the  Federal  Executive 
intends  to  pursue  in  regard  to  the  Confederate  States."1 

William  Ballard  Preston,  Alexander  H.  H.  Stuart  and 
George  W.  Randolph  were  unanimously  elected  members 
of  the  committee  thus  created. 

That  this  action  of  the  Virginia  Convention  was  not 
hypercritical,  that  grave  doubts  actually  existed  as  to  the 
position  of  the  Federal  Government,  is  a  fact  of  con 
temporary  history.  Writing  from  Washington,  March  16, 
1861,  to  Ex-President  Buchanan,  Edwin  M.  Stanton  said: 

1 Journal  of  Virginia  Convention,  1861,  p.  143. 

277 


278  LINCOLN'S  REPLY  TO  CONVENTION 

"  Every  day  affords  proof  of  the  absence  of  any  settled 
policy  or  harmonious  concert  of  action  in  the  Administra 
tion.  Seward,  Bates  and  Cameron  form  one  wing;  Chase, 
Welles,  Blair,  the  opposite  wing;  Smith  is  on  both  sides 
and  Lincoln  sometimes  on  one,  sometimes  on  the  other. 
There  has  been  agreement  in  nothing/'1 

W.  H.  Russell,  the  well-known  correspondent  of  the 
London  Times,  notes  in  his  diary  under  date  of  March 
23d:  "The  Government  (of  the  United  States)  appears  to 
be  helplessly  drifting  with  the  current  of  events,  having 
neither  bow  nor  stern,  neither  keel  nor  deck,  neither 
rudder,  compass,  sails  nor  steam."2 

On  the  1st  of  April,  Secretary  Seward  presented  to  the 
President  his  now  famous  memorandum,  "Some  thoughts 
for  the  President's  consideration,"  the  opening  paragraph 
of  which  recited:  "First.  We  are  at  the  end  of  a  month's 
administration,  and  yet  without  a  policy  either  foreign 
or  domestic."3 

On  the  15th  of  April,  the  Committee  of  the  Virginia 
Convention  appointed  to  wait  on  the  President  submitted 
its  report.  It  recited  that  because  of  violent  and  pro 
tracted  storms  they  had  not  reached  Washington  until 
the  12th;  that  agreeable  to  the  wishes  of  the  President 
they  appeared  before  him  on  the  13th  and  presented 
the  resolution;  and  that  the  President  thereupon  read  to 
them  a  paper  which  embodied  his  response  to  the 
Convention. 

In  his  reply,  Mr.  Lincoln  stated  that  having,  in  his 
inaugural  address,  defined  his  intended  policy,  it  was 

lLife  of  James  Buchanan,  Curtis,  Vol.  II,  p.  534. 
2My  Diary,  North  and  South,  Russell,  Vol.  I,  p.  37. 
3 Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  II,  p.  29. 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  CALL  FOR  TROOPS  279 

with  deep  regret  and  some  mortification  that  he  now 
learned  that  there  was  great  and  injurious  uncertainty 
as  to  what  that  policy  was;  he  commended  a  careful  con 
sideration  of  the  document  as  the  best  expression  he  could 
give  of  his  purpose.  Continuing,  he  said : 

"As  I  then  and  therein  said,  I  now  repeat,  'The  power 
confided  to  me  will  be  used  to  hold,  occupy,  and  possess 
the  property  and  places  belonging  to  the  Government 
and  to  collect  the  duties  and  imposts;  but  beyond  what 
is  necessary  for  these  objects  there  will  be  no  invasion,  no 
using  of  force  against  or  among  the  people  anywhere/  " 

Continuing,  the  President  said: 

"But  if,  as  now  appears  to  be  true,  in  pursuance  of  a 
purpose  to  drive  the  United  States  authority  from  these 
places  an  unprovoked  assault  has  been  made  upon  Fort 
Sumter,  I  shall  hold  myself  at  liberty  to  repossess  if  I  can 
like  places  which  had  been  seized  before  the  Government 
was  devolved  upon  me. 

"And,  in  any  event,  I  shall  to  the  extent  of  my  ability 
repel  force  by  force. 

"In  case  it  proves  true  that  Fort  Sumter  has  been 
assaulted  as  reported,  I  shall  perhaps  cause  the  United 
States  mails  to  be  withdrawn  from  all  the  states  which 
claim  to  have  seceded,  believing  that  the  commencement 
of  actual  war  against  the  Government  justifies  and  possibly 
demands  it."1 

What  effect  this  reply  of  the  President  would  have  had 
upon  the  Virginia  Convention  it  is  impossible  to  say,  for 
on  the  day  of  its  presentation  to  that  body  came  the  news 
of  his  proclamation  calling  for  an  army  of  seventy-five 
thousand  men. 

The  proclamation  recited  that  the  laws  of  the  United 

Journal  of  Virginia  Convention,  1861,  Document  No.  XVII. 


280  THE  CONFLICT  AT  FORT  SUMTER 

States  were  opposed  and  their  execution  obstructed  in 
the  states  of  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Florida, 
Mississippi,  Louisiana  and  Texas,  "by  combinations" 
too  powerful  to  be  suppressed  by  the  ordinary  course  of 
judicial  proceedings. 

The  militia  thus  called  for  was  apportioned  among  the 
several  states  (except  the  seven  forming  the  Southern 
Confederacy)  and  their  governors  were  requested  to  furnish 
forthwith  their  respective  quotas.  Despite  the  some 
what  ambiguous  character  of  this  proclamation,  men 
everywhere  believed  that  the  attempt  was  now  to  be  made 
to  re-establish  by  force  of  arms  the  supremacy  of  the 
National  Government  over  the  states  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  and  that  to  every  commonwealth  was  pre 
sented  the  solemn  alternative  of  bearing  a  part  for  or 
against  this  movement. 

President  Lincoln  justified  the  immediate  issuance  of  his 
proclamation  because  of  what  he  termed  the  unprovoked 
attack  on  Fort  Sumter  and  the  wanton  insult  thus  offered 
the  honor  and  dignity  of  the  nation.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  was  insisted  that  his  action  in  breaking  off  the  negotia 
tions,  having  for  their  object  the  peaceful  adjustment  of 
all  questions  relating  to  Fort  Sumter,  his  notice  to  the 
Governor  of  South  Carolina  that  its  garrison  would  be 
provisioned,  and  the  arrival  off  the  harbor  of  Charleston 
of  the  Relief  Squadron  charged  with  that  mission,  not  only 
precipitated  the  conflict,  but  justified  the  inauguration 
by  the  Southern  Confederacy  of  what  would  have  been, 
under  other  circumstances,  offensive  measures.  Had  the 
authorities  of  the  Confederacy  been  more  thoughtful  of 
their  interests  than  their  rights,  or  taken  counsel  of  their 
caution  rather  than  of  their  courage,  they  might  have 
permitted  the  naval  expedition  to  provision  Fort  Sumter 


VIRGINIA'S  SECESSION   PRECIPITATED  281 

and  reinforce  its  garrison  with  men  and  munitions  of  war. 
Such,  however,  was  not  the  temper  and  fibre  of  that 
people.  They  met  what  they  deemed  a  second  invasion 
of  their  country  just  as  they  did  four  months  before,  when 
they  fired  upon  the  "  Star  of  the  West"  in  the  first  attempt 
to  relieve  the  Fort. 

Alexander  H.  Stephens,  Vice-President  of  the  Con 
federacy,  in  his  work  The  War  Between  the  States,  presents 
the  position  of  his  Government  with  respect  to  the  matter 
as  follows: 

"  I  maintain  that  it  (the  war)  was  inaugurated  and  begun 
though  no  blow  had  been  struck,  when  the  hostile  fleet, 
styled  the  '  Relief  Squadron/  with  eleven  ships  carrying 
two  hundred  and  eighty-five  guns  and  two  thousand  four 
hundred  men,  was  sent  out  from  New  York  and  Norfolk, 
with  orders  from  the  authorities  at  Washington  to  re 
inforce  Fort  Sumter,  peaceably,  if  permitted,  but  forcibly, 
if  they  resist/' 

The  action  of  the  Virginia  Convention  was  quick  and 
decisive.  On  the  17th  of  April,  an  ordinance  was  adopted 
providing  for  Virginia's  secession  from  the  Union  and 
submitting  this  action  of  the  Convention  to  the  people 
for  ratification  or  rejection  at  a  special  election  to  be 
held  on  the  23d  of  May.  In  the  Convention  the  tentative 
ordinance  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  eighty-eight  ayes  to 
fifty-five  noes  (nine  not  voting),  and  before  the  people 
a  month  later  it  was  confirmed  by  a  vote  of  128,884  against 
32,134.  Mr.  Rhodes  records  that,  in  the  concluding 
hours  of  the  Convention,  strong  men  spoke  for  or  against 
secession,  with  sorrowful  hearts  and  in  voices  trembling 
with  emotion.1 

^History  of  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  386. 


282          VIRGINIA'S  SECESSION  PRECIPITATED 

This  action  of  the  Convention  was  the  logical  and 
inevitable  result  of  the  President's  proclamation.  There 
had  never  been  any  doubt  as  to  Virginia's  position.  With 
all  her  loyalty  to  the  Union,  she  had  repeatedly  declared 
in  the  most  authoritative  manner,  her  opposition  to  the 
coercion  of  the  Cotton  States  and  her  determination  to 
resist  such  a  policy. 

To  the  requisition  upon  Virginia  for  her  quota  of  troops 
Governor  Letcher  made  reply  to  the  Secretary  of  War: 

"I  have  only  to  say  that  the  militia  of  Virginia  will 
not  be  furnished  to  the  powers  at  Washington  for  any 
such  use  or  purpose  as  they  have  in  view.  Your  object 
is  to  subjugate  the  Southern  States  and  the  requisition 
made  upon  me  for  such  an  object — an  object  in  my  judg 
ment  not  within  the  purview  of  the  constitution  or  the 
act  of  1795,  will  not  be  complied  with.  You  have  chosen 
to  inaugurate  civil  war;  and  having  done  so  we  will  meet 
you  in  a  spirit  as  determined  as  the  Administration  has 
exhibited  toward  the  South."1 

The  Governors  of  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Ten 
nessee  and  North  Carolina  returned  like  answers  to  the 
requisitions  of  the  Federal  authorities  for  troops. 

Mr.  Henderson,  the  English  writer,  in  his  work  from 
which  we  have  heretofore  quoted,  says  with  reference  to 
Virginia's  position: 

"So  far  Virginia  had  given  no  overt  sign  of  sympathy 
with  the  revolution.  But  she  was  now  called  upon  to 
furnish  her  quota  of  regiments  for  the  Federal  Army.  To 
have  acceded  to  the  demands  would  have  been  to  abjure 
the  most  cherished  principles  of  her  political  existence. 
.  .  .  Neutrality  was  impossible.  She  was  bound  to  fur 
nish  her  tale  of  troops  and  thus  belie  her  principles;  or 

^American  Conflict,  Greeley,  Vol.  I,  p.  459. 


VIRGINIA'S  SECESSION   PRECIPITATED          283 

secede  at  once  and  reject,  with  a  clean  conscience,  the 
President's  mandate.  If  the  morality  of  secession  may 
be  questioned,  if  South  Carolina  acted  with  undue  haste 
and  without  sufficient  provocation,  if  certain  of  the  South 
ern  politicians  desired  emancipation  for  themselves,  that 
they  might  continue  to  enslave  others,  it  can  hardly  be 
denied  that  the  action  of  Virginia  was  not  only  fully 
justified,  but  beyond  suspicion.  ,  .  .  "l 

1Stonewall  Jackson,  Henderson,  Vol.  I,  p.  122. 


XLI 

THE  ATTEMPTED  REINFORCEMENT  OF  FORT  SUMTER 
AND  ITS  SIGNIFICANCE 

THE  relative  responsibility  for  the  collision  at  Fort 
Sumter  we  are  not  concerned  to  consider  except  in  so  far 
as  it  may  have  affected  the  action  of  Virginia  in  with 
drawing  from  the  Union.  The  charge  is  often  heard,  that, 
despite  Virginia's  professed  love  for  the  Union,  and  her 
efforts  to  maintain  the  peace,  she  made  haste  to  unite 
her  fortunes  with  the  Southern  Confederacy  because  of 
this  assault  by  its  soldiers  upon  Fort  Sumter.  It  would 
seem  a  most  illogical  conclusion  to  all  her  unquestioned 
efforts  if  she  were  thus  led  to  espouse  the  cause  of  the 
Confederacy  and  to  gird  herself  for  battle  by  reason  of  the 
happening  of  the  very  event  she  had  striven  so  earnestly 
to  avert.  It  was  not  the  assault  upon  Fort  Sumter, 
however  momentous  in  its  potency,  which  impelled 
Virginia,  but  the  proclamation  of  President  Lincoln  which 
followed.  The  proclamation  was  the  proximate  cause  of 
her  secession,  though  her  action  was  stimulated  by  the 
previous  course  of  the  Federal  authorities  with  respect  to 
the  Fort.  The  people  of  Virginia  regarded  the  policy  of 
the  Administration  as  characterized  by  a  disregard  for  the 
peace  of  the  country,  a  play  for  position  ill-befitting  a 
great  nation  at  such  a  solemn  crisis.  Much  has  been 
written  in  defense  of  that  policy.  In  support  of  Virginia's 
arraignment,  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  Cabinet 
ministers  may  be  quoted.  Three  weeks  previous  to  the 

284 


VIEWS  OF  CABINET  285 

issuance  of  the  orders  for  the  relief  of  Fort  Sumter,  five 
of  its  seven  members  recorded  their  opposition  and  the 
considerations  of  prudence  and  patriotism  which  im 
pelled  them  to  their  position. 

On  the  15th  of  March,  1861,  President  Lincoln  sub 
mitted  the  following  request  in  writing  to  each  member 
of  his  Cabinet: 

"  My  dear  Sir: 

11  Assuming  it  to  be  possible  to  now  provision  Fort 
Sumter,  under  all  the  circumstances  is  it  wise  to  attempt 
it  ?  Please  give  me  your  opinion  in  writing  on  this  question. 

Your  obedient  servant, 
A.  LINCOLN.'71 

Secretary  Seward,  in  the  course  of  an  extended  reply, 
wrote : 

"  If  it  were  possible  to  peaceably  provision  Fort  Sumter, 
of  course,  I  should  answer  that  it  would  be  both  unwise 
and  inhuman  not  to  attempt  it.  But  the  facts  of  the 
case  are  known  to  be  that  the  attempt  must  be  made  with 
the  employment  of  military  and  marine  force  which 
would  provoke  combat  and  probably  initiate  a  civil  war 
which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  be 
committed  to  maintain,  through  all  changes,  to  some 
definite  conclusion."  .  .  . 

Continuing,  Mr.  Seward  said: 

"Suppose  the  expedition  successful,  we  have  then  a 
garrison  in  Fort  Sumter  that  can  defy  assault  for  six 
months.  What  is  it  to  do  then?  Is  it  to  make  war  by 
opening  its  batteries  to  demolish  the  defenses  of  the 
Carolinians?  Can  it  demolish  them  if  it  tries?  If  it  can 
not,  what  is  the  advantage  we  shall  have  gained?  If  it 
can,  how  will  it  serve  to  check  or  prevent  disunion?  In 

1  Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  II,  p.  11. 


286  VIEWS  OF  CABINET 

either  case,  it  seems  to  me,  that  we  will  have  inaugurated 
a  civil  war  by  our  own  act,  without  an  adequate  object, 
after  which  reunion  will  be  hopeless,  at  least  under  this 
Administration  or  in  any  other  way  than  by  a  popular 
disavowal  both  of  the  war  and  of  the  Administration 
which  unnecessarily  commenced  it.  Fraternity  is  the  ele 
ment  of  union;  war  the  very  element  of  disunion."  .  .  , 

In  conclusion,  he  said:  "If  this  counsel  seems  to  be  im 
passive  and  even  unpatriotic,  I  console  myself  by  the 
reflection  that  it  is  such  as  Chatham  gave  to  his  country 
under  circumstances  not  widely  different."1 

Secretary  Cameron  wrote  he  would  advise  such  action 
if  he  "did  not  believe  the  attempt  to  carry  it  into  effect 
would  initiate  a  bloody  and  protracted  conflict."2 

Secretary  Welles  wrote : 

"  By  sending  or  attempting  to  send  provisions  into  Fort 
Sumter,  will  not  war  be  precipitated?  It  may  be  impos 
sible  to  escape  it  under  any  course  of  policy  that  may  be 
pursued,  but  I  am  not  prepared  to  advise  a  course  that 
would  provoke  hostilities.  ...  I  do  not,  therefore,  under 
all  the  circumstances,  think  it  wise  to  provision  Fort 
Sumter."3 

Secretary  Smith  wrote: 

"The  commencement  of  civil  war  would  be  a  calamity 
greatly  to  be  deplored  and  should  be  avoided  if  the  just 
authority  of  the  Government  may  be  maintained  without 
it.  If  such  a  conflict  should  become  inevitable,  it  is  much 
better  that  it  should  commence  by  the  resistance  of  the 
authorities  or  the  people  of  South  Carolina  to  the  legal 

lldem,  pp.  11  and  14. 
*Idem,  p.  17.    , 

3 Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  II,  p.  18. 


VIEWS  OF  CABINET  287 

action  of  the  Government  in  enforcing  the  laws  of  the 
United  States.  .  .  . 

"If  a  conflict  should  be  provoked  by  the  attempt  to 
reinforce  Fort  Sumter,  a  divided  sentiment  in  the  North 
would  paralyze  the  arm  of  the  Government,  while  the 
treason  in  the  Southern  States  would  be  openly  encouraged 
in  the  North.  ...  I,  therefore,  respectfully  answer  the 
inquiry  of  the  President  by  saying  that  in  my  opinion  it 
would  not  be  wise,  under  all  the  circumstances,  to  attempt 
to  provision  Fort  Sumter.7'1 

Attorney  General  Bates  wrote: 

"I  am  unwilling,  under  all  the  circumstances,  at  this 
moment,  to  do  any  act  which  may  have  the  semblance 
before  the  world  of  beginning  a  civil  war,  the  terrible 
consequence  of  which  would,  I  think,  find  no  parallel  in 
modern  times.  .  .  .  For  these  reasons,  I  am  willing  to 
evacuate  Fort  Sumter,  rather  than  be  an  active  party  in 
the  beginning  of  civil  war.  .  .  .  Upon  the  whole  I  do  not 
think  it  wise  now  to  attempt  to  provision  Fort  Sumter. "2 

Postmaster  General  Blair  and  Secretary  Chase  united 
in  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  wise  to  make  the  effort  to 
provision  Fort  Sumter. 

Mr.  Blair  wrote: 

"I  believe  that  Fort  Sumter  may  be  provisioned  and 
relieved  by  Captain  Fox  with  but  little  risk;  and  General 
Scott's  opinion  that,  with  its  war  complement,  there  is 
no  force  in  South  Carolina  which  can  take  it,  renders  it 
almost  certain  that  it  will  not  then  be  attempted.  This 
would  completely  demoralize  the  rebellion.  .  .  .  No  ex 
pense  nor  care  should  therefore  be  spared  to  achieve  this 
success."3 


lldem,  pp.  19  and  20. 
*Idem,  p.  22. 
3Idem,  p.  21. 


288  VIEWS  OF  CABINET 

Secretary  Chase  wrote : 

"A  correct  solution  must  depend,  in  my  judgment,  on 
the  degree  of  possibility,  on  the  combination  of  reinforce 
ment  with  provisioning  and  on  the  probable  effects  of  the 
measure  on  the  relations  of  the  disaffected  states  to  the 
National  Government. 

"  I  shall  assume  what  the  statements  of  the  distinguished 
officers  consulted  seem  to  warrant,  that  the  possibility  of 
success  amounts  to  a  reasonable  degree  of  probability; 
and  also  that  the  attempt  to  provision  is  to  include  an 
attempt  to  reinforce;  for  it  seems  to  be  generally  agreed 
that  the  provisioning  without  reinforcements  notwith 
standing  hostile  resistance,  will  accomplish  no  substantially 
beneficial  purpose. 

"The  probable  political  effects  of  the  measure  allow 
room  for  much  fair  difference  of  opinion,  and  I  have  not 
reached  my  own  conclusion  without  much  difficulty/' 

The  Secretary  then  preceded  to  declare,  that,  if  such  a 
step  would  produce  civil  war,  he  could  not  advise  in  its 
favor,  but  that,  in  his  opinion,  such  a  result  was  highly 
improbable,  especially  if  accompanied  by  a  proclamation 
from  the  President  reiterating  the  sentiments  of  his  in 
augural  address.  "I,  therefore/7  concluded  Mr.  Chase, 
"return  an  affirmative  answer  to  the  question  submitted 
to  me."1 

It  will  be  seen,  from  the  foregoing  extracts,  that  five  of 
the  seven  members  of  the  Cabinet  concurred  in  the  opinion 
that  no  attempt  should  be  made  to  provision  or  reinforce 
Fort  Sumter,  and  that  such  an  attempt  would  in  all  proba 
bility  precipitate  civil  war.  As  Mr.  Seward  expressed  it: 
"We  will  have  inaugurated  a  civil  war  by  our  own  act 
without  an  adequate  object";  or  in  the  language  of  Secre- 

1  Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  II,  pp.  14  and  15. 


RESPONSIBILITY  FOR  THE  COLLISION  289 

tary  Welles,  "  By  sending  or  attempting  to  send  provisions 
into  Fort  Sumter,  will  not  war  be  precipitated?  ...  I 
am  not  prepared  to  advise  a  course  that  would  provoke 
hostilities." 

If  such  were  the  opinions  of  leading  members  of  President 
Lincoln's  Cabinet,  expressed  in  confidential  communica 
tions  to  their  chief,  as  to  the  character  of  the  proposed 
action,  can  it  be  deemed  unreasonable  that  the  people  of 
Virginia  held  similar  views? 

Fourteen  days  later,  the  President  made  a  verbal  request 
to  his  Cabinet  for  an  additional  expression  of  their  views 
upon  the  same  subject.  Seward  and  Smith  adhered  to 
their  former  opinions.  Chase  and  Blair  were  joined  by 
Welles.  Bates  was  noncommittal,  and  no  reply  was 
made  by  Cameron,  so  far  as  the  records  show. 

In  the  light  of  the  facts  and  arguments  presented  by  the 
members  of  the  President's  Cabinet,  men,  not  a  few,  will 
conclude  that,  if  the  explosion  occurred  at  Fort  Sumter, 
the  mine  was  laid  at  Washington. 


XLII 

THE  ATTEMPT  TO  COERCE  THE  COTTON  STATES  IMPELS 
VIRGINIA'S  SECESSION 

JAMES  FORD  RHODES  in  his  history  of  the  United  States, 
referring  to  the  eventful  year  of  1861,  says: 

"  There  were  at  this  time  in  the  Border  States  of  Virginia, 
Maryland,  Kentucky  and  Missouri  unconditional  Seces 
sionists  and  unconditional  Union  men;  but  the  great  body 
of  the  people,  although  believing  that  the  wrongs  of  the 
South  were  grievous  and  cried  for  redress,  deemed  seces 
sion  inexpedient.  ...  All  denied  either  the  right  or  the 
feasibility  of  coercion.7'1 

What  was  the  pith  and  potency  of  this  anti-coercion 
sentiment  among  the  people  of  Virginia? 

There  were  two  distinct  schools  of  thought  and  yet  both 
denied  the  right  of  the  Federal  Government  to  coerce  the 
people  of  the  Cotton  States. 

One  school  believed  in  the  constitutional  right  of  a  state 
to  secede:  the  Union  was  formed  by  the  constitution — 
which  was  a  compact  between  independent  sovereignties; 
the  powers  of  the  Union  were  those  and  only  those  delegated 
to  it  by  the  states;  the  states  never  surrendered  their 
sovereignty,  nor  their  right  to  withdraw  from  the  Union 
for  what  they  deemed  sufficient  cause.  This,  in  brief, 
was  the  position  of  the  school  which  maintained  the  con 
stitutional  right  of  a  state  to  secede. 

The  other  school  while   denying  the  constitutionality 

History  of  the  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  214. 
290 


ANTI-COERCION  SENTIMENT  IN  VIRGINIA       291 

of  secession,  yet  held  that  the  Federal  Government  could 
not  reduce  to  submission  a  people  as  numerous  as  those  of 
the  Cotton  States,  without  doing  violence  to  the  principles, 
ethical  and  political,  upon  which  the  Union  was  founded. 
This  in  brief  was  the  position  of  those  who  maintained 
the  revolutionary  right  of  the  people  of  the  seceded  states 
to  fix  their  own  form  of  government  unawed  by  any  out 
side  power. 

It  is  not  within  the  purview  of  our  allotted  task  to  vin 
dicate  or  even  investigate  the  constitutional  right  of  a 
state,  or  of  the  Cotton  States,  to  secede  from  the  Union, 
or  to  accomplish  the  same  end  through  the  right  of  revolu 
tion  as  inherent  in  their  people.  Our  discussion  is  here 
limited  to  a  consideration  of  the  strong  anti-coercion 
sentiments  among  the  Virginia  people,  and  how  these  con 
victions  ultimately  controlled  their  action  on  the  question 
of  the  secession  of  their  state.  It  will  suffice  to  say  that 
whether  regarded  as  a  constitutional  or  a  revolutionary 
right,  or  both  combined,  the  people  of  Virginia  held 
that  the  Cotton  States,  having  deliberately  and  with 
almost  unexampled  unanimity,  decided  to  dissolve  the 
political  relations  which  formerly  existed  between  them 
and  their  sister  commonwealths,  there  was  with  respect 
to  the  legal  and  ethical  character  of  this  action  no 
competent  court  of  review  this  side  of  the  judgment 
seat  of  Heaven.  The  wisdom  of  their  secession  might  be 
denied,  the  morality  of  their  action  might  be  questioned, 
the  disastrous  consequences  to  the  Union  might  be 
admitted,  but  still  no  right  existed  in  any  body  of  men 
to  invade  their  country  and  defeat  their  aspirations  by  the 
sword. 

Had  not  a  people  as  numerous  and  united  as  those  of 
the  Cotton  States  the  inherent  right,  in  the  language  of  the 


292  DAVIS  ON  RIGHT  OF  REVOLUTION 

Declaration  of  Independence,  "To  assume  among  the 
powers  of  the  earth  the  separate  and  equal  station  to  which 
the  laws  of  Nature  and  Nature's  God  entitled  them?" 
Were  the  just  powers  of  governments  derived  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed?  To  the  Virginians  of  1861  it 
was  a  solecism  to  accord  to  one  body  of  people  a  right, 
and  yet  acknowledge  in  another  the  equal  right  to  defeat 
its  exercise.  It  was  an  anachronism  to  talk  in  America, 
after  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  war  with 
Great  Britain,  about  the  right  of  self-government  in  three 
millions  of  people  as  being  dependent  upon  force.  This 
was  acknowledged  before  Samuel  Adams  and  Thomas 
Jefferson  were  born,  and  before  the  Patriots  had  made 
good  their  great  avowals  by  their  heroic  struggles  from 
Concord  to  Yorktown.  Force,  Virginia  insisted,  was  not 
the  method  of  holding  great  masses  of  American  freemen 
in  unwilling  association  with  their  fellows;  nor  the  im 
plements  of  war,  the  legitimate  means  for  determining 
great  questions  of  legal  and  ethical  right. 

Jefferson  Davis,  in  his  farewell  address  to  the  United 
States  Senate,  expressed  the  sentiments  of  Virginia  upon 
this  point  when  he  said: 

"  Now,  sir,  we  are  confusing  language  very  much.  Men 
speak  of  revolution;  and  when  they  say  revolution,  they 
mean  blood.  Our  fathers  meant  nothing  of  the  sort. 
When  they  spoke  of  revolution,  they  meant  an  inalienable 
right.  When  they  declared  as  an  inalienable  right,  the 
power  of  the  people  to  abrogate  and  modify  their  form 
of  government  whenever  it  did  not  answer  the  ends  for 
which  it  was  established,  they  did  not  mean  that  they 
were  to  sustain  that  by  brute  force.  .  .  .  Are  we,  in  this 
age  of  civilization  and  political  progress  ...  are  we  to 
roll  back  the  whole  current  of  human  thought  and  again 
to  return  to  the  mere  brute  force  which  prevails  between 


ANTI-COERCION  VIEWS  OF  VIRGINIANS          293 

beasts  of  prey  as  the  only  method  of  settling  questions 
between  men?  .  .  . 

"Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  men  who  fought  the 
battles  of  the  Revolution  for  community  independence, 
terminated  their  great  efforts  by  transmitting  posterity 
to  a  condition  in  which  they  could  only  gain  those  rights 
by  force?  If  so,  the  blood  of  the  Revolution  was  shed  in 
vain;  no  great  principles  were  established;  for  force  was 
the  law  of  nature  before  the  battles  of  the  Revolution  were 
fought."1 

Such  was  the  attitude  of  the  great  body  of  the  Virginia 
people.  That  no  new  principle  was  asserted  to  meet  the 
exigencies  of  the  hour,  all  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  the  state  will  readily  appreciate.  Even  men  who 
denied  the  constitutional  right  of  secession,  joined  with 
those  who  believed  in  that  right  in  opposing  coercion. 

Robert  E.  Lee,  writing  on  the  23d  of  January,  1861,  said: 

"Secession  is  nothing  but  revolution.  The  framers  of 
our  constitution  never  exhausted  so  much  labor,  wisdom 
and  forbearance  in  its  formation  and  surrounded  it  with 
so  many  guards  and  securities  if  it  was  intended  to  be 
broken  by  every  member  of  the  Confederacy  at  will.  .  .  . 

"  Still  a  Union  that  can  only  be  maintained  by  swords 
and  bayonets  and  in  which  strife  and  civil  war  are  to  take 
the  place  of  brotherly  love  and  kindness,  has  no  charm 
for  me.  If  the  Union  is  dissolved  and  the  Government 
disrupted  I  shall  return  to  my  native  state  and  share  the 
miseries  of  my  people — and  save  in  defense  will  draw  my 
sword  on  none."2 

William  C.  Rives,  speaking  on  the  19th  of  February, 
1861,  in  the  Peace  Conference  at  Washington,  as  one  of 
the  Commissioners  from  Virginia,  said: 

lRise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  Vol.  1,  p.  617. 
^Memoirs  of  Robert  E.  Lee,  Long,  p.  88. 


294       ANTI-COERCION  VIEWS  OF  VIRGINIANS 

"I  condemn  the  secession  of  states,  I  am  not  here  to 
justify  it.  I  detest  it,  but  the  fact  is  still  before  us.  Seven 
states  have  gone  out  from  among  us  and  a  President  is 
actually  inaugurated  to  govern  the  new  Confederacy.  .  .  . 
Force  will  never  bring  them  together.  Coercion  is  not  a 
word  to  be  used  in  this  connection/'1 

George  Baylor,  speaking  on  the  1st  of  March  1861,  in 
the  Virginia  Convention,  said: 

"I  have  said,  Mr.  President,  that  I  did  not  believe  in 
the  right  of  secession.  But  whilst  I  make  that  assertion, 
I  also  say  that  I  am  opposed  to  coercion  on  the  part  of 
the  Federal  Government  with  the  view  of  bringing  the 
seceded  states  back  into  the  Union.  ...  I  am  opposed 
to  it  first  because  I  can  find  no  authority  in  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  delegating  that  power  to  the 
Federal  Government,  and  second  because  if  the  Federal 
Government  had  the  power  it  would  be  wrong  to  use  it."2 

The  foregoing  sentiments  were  not  confined  to  the 
Virginia  people,  either  of  the  Revolutionary  or  Civil  War 
periods.  A  few  deliverances  by  men  of  international 
reputation  made  during  the  three  decades  preceding  the 
Civil  War  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  truth  of  this  suggestion: 

M.  de  Tocqueville,  in  his  work,  Democracy  in  America, 
discussing  the  subject,  says: 

"However  strong  a  government  may  be,  it  cannot 
easily  escape  from  the  consequences  of  a  principle  which 
it  has  once  admitted  as  the  foundation  of  its  constitution. 
The  Union  was  formed  by  the  voluntary  agreement  of 
the  states;  and  in  uniting  together  they  have  not  for 
feited  their  nationality  nor  have  they  been  reduced  to  the 
condition  of  one  and  the  same  people.  If  one  of  the 

^Proceedings  of  Peace  Convention,  Crittenden,  p.  136. 
2See  Richmond  Enquirer,  March  2d,  1908. 


FOUNDATION  OF  AMERICAN  INSTITUTIONS      295 

states  chose  to  withdraw  its  name  from  the  contract,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  disprove  its  right  of  doing  so;  and 
the  Federal  Government  would  have  no  means  of  main 
taining  its  claims  directly,  either  by  force  or  by  right."1 

Lord  Brougham  in  his  Political  Philosophy,  alluding  to 
the  unique  character  of  the  government  created  by  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States,  writes: 

"There  is  not,  as  with  us,  a  government  only  and  its 
subjects  to  be  regarded;  but  a  number  of  governments, 
of  states,  having  each  a  separate  and  substantive,  and  even 
independent  existence,  originally  thirteen  now  six  and 
twenty,  and  each  having  a  Legislature  of  its  own  with  laws 
differing  from  those  of  the  other  states.  It  is  plainly 
impossible  to  consider  the  constitution  which  professes 
to  govern  this  whole  Union,  this  f ederacy  of  states,  as  any 
thing  other  than  a  treaty."2 

John  Quincy  Adams,  speaking  before  the  New  York 
Historical  Society  in  1839,  on  the  fiftieth  aniversary  of 
Washington's  inauguration  as  President  of  the  United 
States,  said: 

"To  the  people  alone  there  is  reserved  as  well  the  dis 
solving  as  the  constituent  power  and  that  power  can  be 
exercised  by  them  only  under  the  tie  of  conscience  binding 
them  to  the  retributive  justice  of  Heaven. 

"With  these  qualifications  we  may  admit  the  right  as 
vested  in  the  people  of  every  state  of  the  Union  with 
reference  to  the  General  Government  which  was  exercised 
by  the  people  of  the  United  Colonies  with  reference  to  the 
supreme  head  of  the  British  Empire  of  which  they  formed 
a  part  and  under  these  limitations  have  the  people  of  each 
state  of  the  Union  a  right  to  secede  from  the  Confederated 
Union  itself."3 

1Democracy  in  America,  de  Tocqueville,  Vol.  II,  p.  257. 
'Political  Philosophy,  Brougham,  1849,  part  3,  p.  336. 
^Buchanan's  Administration,  Buchanan,  p.  89. 


296  CONSENT  NOT  FORCE 

Mr.  Lincoln,  speaking  on  the  12th  of  January,  1848, 
in  Congress,  said: 

"Any  people  anywhere  being  inclined  and  having  the 
power  have  the  right  to  rise  up  and  shake  off  the  existing 
government,  and  form  a  new  one  that  suits  them  better. 
This  is  a  most  valuable,  most  sacred  right,  a  right  which 
we  hope  and  believe  is  to  liberate  the  world.  Nor  is  this 
right  confined  to  cases  in  which  the  whole  people  of  an 
existing  government  may  choose  to  exercise  it.  Any  por 
tion  of  such  people  that  can  may  revolutionize  and  make 
their  own  any  or  so  much  of  the  territory  as  they  inhabit."1 

Probably  Mr.  Gladstone  expressed  in  the  briefest  possible 
compass  the  general  consensus  of  the  Virginia  people,  when 
on  the  24th  of  April,  1862,  in  his  Manchester  speech, 
referring  to  the  attitude  of  the  Federal  Government  and 
the  Northern  people,  he  said:  "We  have  no  faith  in  the 
propagation  of  free  institutions  at  the  point  of  the  sword."3 

Scarcely  less  pronounced  were  the  sentiments  of  many 
prominent  Americans  expressed  just  before  the  outbreak 
of  the  Civil  War  with  reference  to  the  moral  or  political 
right  of  the  Federal  Government  or  the  Northern  people 
to  coerce  the  Southern  States. 

Horace  Greeley,  in  the  issue  of  the  New  York  Tribune 
of  November  9th,  1860,  discussing  the  contemplated 
secession  of  the  Cotton  States,  wrote: 

"If  the  Cotton  States  shall  decide  that  they  can  do 
better  out  of  the  Union  than  in  it,  we  insist  on  letting 
them  go  in  peace.  The  right  to  secede  may  be  a  revolu 
tionary  one  but  it  exists  nevertheless;  and  we  do  not  see 

1 Abraham  Lincoln,  Speeches,  Letters  and  State  Papers,  N.  &  H., 
Vol.  I,  p.  105. 

^History  of  the  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  IV,  p.  80. 


VIEWS  OF   PROMINENT  AMERICANS  297 

how  one  party  can  have  a  right  to  do  what  another  party 
has  a  right  to  prevent."1 

Again  he  wrote : 

"If  it  (the  Declaration  of  Independence)  justified  the 
secession  from  the  British  Empire  of  three  millions  of 
colonists  in  1776,  we  do  not  see  why  it  would  not  justify 
the  secession  of  five  millions  of  Southerners  from  the 
Federal  Union  in  1861.  If  we  are  mistaken  on  this  point 
why  does  not  some  one  attempt  to  show  wherein  and 
why(?)"2 

On  the  23d  of  February,  1861,  he  wrote: 

"  We  have  repeatedly  said  and  we  once  more  insist  that 
the  great  principle  embodied  by  Jefferson  in  the  Declara 
tion  of  American  Independence  that  governments  derive 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed  is  sound 
and  just;  and  that  if  the  Slave  States,  the  Cotton  States,  or 
the  Gulf  States  only,  choose  to  form  an  independent  nation 
they  have  a  clear  moral  right  to  do  so."3 

President  Buchanan,  in  his  message  to  Congress  on  the 
3d  of  December,  1860,  said: 

"The  fact  is  that  our  Union  rests  upon  public  opinion 
and  can  never  be  cemented  by  the  blood  of  its  citizens 
shed  in  civil  war.  If  it  cannot  live  in  the  affections  of  the 
people  it  must  one  day  perish.  Congress  possesses  many 
means  of  preserving  it  by  conciliation;  but  the  sword 
was  not  placed  in  their  hands  to  preserve  it  by  force." 

Edward  Everett,  writing  on  the  2d  of  February,  1861, 
to  the  Union  Meeting  called  to  assemble  at  Faneuil  Hall, 
said: 

^History  of  the  United  States,  Rhodes,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  140. 
*Life  of  James  Buchanan,  Curtis,  Vol.  II,  p.  430. 
*Idem. 


298  VIEWS  OF  PROMINENT  AMERICANS 

"To  expect  to  hold  fifteen  states  in  the  Union  by  force 
is  preposterous.  The  idea  of  a  civil  war,  accompanied,  as 
it  would  be,  by  a  servile  insurrection,  is  too  monstrous 
to  be  entertained  for  a  moment.  If  our  sister  states 
must  leave  us,  in  the  name  of  Heaven,  let  them  go  in 
peace."1 

Wendell  Phillips,  speaking  at  New  Bedford,  Mass.,  on 
the  9th  of  April,  1861,  said: 

"But  I  am  sorry  that  a  gun  should  be  fired  at  Fort 
Sumter  or  that  a  gun  should  be  fired  from  it  for  this 
reason:  The  administration  at  Washington  does  not  know 
its  time.  Here  are  a  series  of  states  girding  the  Gulf  who 
think  that  their  peculiar  institutions  require  that  they  should 
have  a  separate  government.  They  have  a  right  to  decide 
that  question  without  appealing  to  you  or  me.  A  large 
body  of  people,  sufficient  to  make  a  nation,  have  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  they  will  have  a  government  of  a 
certain  form.  Who  denies  them  the  right?  Standing 
with  the  principles  of  76  behind  us,  who  can  deny  them 
the  right?"2 

Abraham  Lincoln,  speaking  on  the  15th  of  November, 
1860,  said: 

"My  own  impression  is,  leaving  myself  room  to  modify 
the  opinion,  if,  upon  further  investigation,  I  should  see  fit 
to  do  so,  that  this  Government  possesses  both  the  authority 
and  the  power  to  maintain  its  own  integrity.  That, 
however,  is  not  the  ugly  point  of  this  matter.  The  ugly 
point  is  the  necessity  of  keeping  the  Government  together 
by  force  as  ours  should  be  a  Government  of  fraternity,"3 

On  the  10th  of  April,  1861,  only  five  days  previous  to 
the  call  for  seventy-five  thousand  soldiers,  Mr.  Seward,  as 

I0rigin  of  the  Late  War,  Lunt,  1866,  p.  431. 

' 'History  of  Massachusetts  in  Civil  War,  Schouler,  Vol.  I,  p.  45. 

9 Abraham  Lincoln,  A  History,  N.  &  H.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  247. 


VIRGINIA  ADHERES  TO  HER  PRINCIPLES      299 

Secretary  of  State,  in  an  official  communication  to  the 
American  Minister  to  Great  Britain,  wrote: 

"For  these  reasons  he  (the  President)  would  not  be 
disposed  to  reject  a  cardinal  dogma  of  theirs  (the  Secession 
ists),  namely,  that  the  Federal  Government  could  not 
reduce  the  seceding  states  to  obedience  by  conquest,  even 
though  he  were  disposed  to  question  that  proposition. 
But,  in  fact,  the  President  willingly  accepts  it  as  true. 
Only  an  imperial  or  despotic  government  could  subjugate 
thoroughly  disaffected  and  insurrectionary  members  of  the 
state.  This  Federal  Republican  system  of  ours  of  all 
forms  of  government  is  the  very  one  which  is  most  unfitted 
for  such  labor."1 

Such  were  some  of  the  deliverances  of  prominent  Ameri 
cans  in  the  days  immediately  preceding  the  Civil  War. 
They  expressed  the  sentiments  of  leading  Virginians  of 
the  time  and  explained  and  vindicated  their  position  in 
resisting  the  policy  of  coercion  adopted  by  the  Federal 
Government.  Why  was  it  that  in  the  supreme  hour 
Greeley  and  Seward  and  Lincoln,  and  all  their  notable 
compatriots,  parted  company  with  Virginia? 

Charles  Francis  Adams  says: 

"Virginia,  as  I  have  said,  made  state  sovereignty  an 
article — a  cardinal  article — of  its  political  creed.  So 
logically  and  consistently  it  took  the  position  that  though 
it  might  be  unwise  for  a  state  to  secede,  a  state  which 
did  secede  could  not  and  should  not  be  coerced. 

"To  us  now  this  position  seems  worse  than  illogical.  It 
is  impossible.  So  events  proved  it  then.  Yet,  after  all, 
it  is  based  on  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  consent  of 
the  governed;  and  in  the  days  immediately  preceding  the 
Civil  War  something  very  like  it  was  accepted  as  an  article 
of  correct  political  faith  by  men  afterwards  as  strenuous 

^Diplomatic  Correspondence,  1861,  p.  58. 


300      VIRGINIA  ADHERES  TO  HER  PRINCIPLES 

in  support  of  a  Union  re-established  by  force  as  Charles 
Sumner;  Abraham  Lincoln,  William  H.  Seward,  Salmon  P. 
Chase,  and  Horace  Greeley.  The  difference  was  that 
confronted  by  the  overwhelming  tide  of  events,  Virginia  ad 
hered  to  it;  they,  in  presence  of  that  tide,  tacitly  abandoned 
it."1 

lLee  at  Appomattox  and  Other  Papers,  C.  F.  Adams,  1902,  p.  403-4. 


XLIII 
CONCLUSION 

THE  crisis  arose  and  thus  was  precipitated  Virginia's 
secession.  To  many  of  her  people  it  came  as  a  long  hoped 
for  event.  They  rejoiced  that  Virginia  was  now  to  enter 
upon  a  more  inspiring  career  untrammelled  by  associates  di 
vergent  in  sentiments  and  hostile  in  interests.  They  hailed 
the  rise  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  as  a  new  nation  born 
into  the  world,  and  with  eager  hearts  looked  forward  to 
a  future  which  should  bring  to  the  people  of  Virginia  and 
the  South  a  measure  of  self-government,  peace  and  pros 
perity  they  had  never  known  before. 

To  the  majority,  however,  of  the  Virginia  people  the 
event  came  as  one  long  dreaded  and  much  to  be  deplored. 
They  met  it  with  a  firm  adherence  to  the  principles  so 
often  declared,  but  with  profound  regret  that  the  occasion 
had  arisen  which  rendered  their  assertion  imperative. 

The  pathos  no  less  than  the  determination  which  marked 
the  hour  may  be  read  in  the  contemporary  utterances  of  her 
foremost  men. 

Her  Governor,  John  Letcher,  in  his  message  to  the 
General  Assembly,  January  1861,  said: 

"Surely  no  people  have  been  blessed  as  we  have  been, 
and  it  is  melancholy  to  think  that  all  is  now  about  to  be 
sacrificed  on  the  Altar  of  Passion.  If  the  judgments  of 
men  were  consulted,  if  the  admonitions  of  their  consciences 
were  respected,  the  Union  would  yet  be  saved  from  over 
throw." 

301 


302  VIRGINIANS  DEPLORE  DISUNION 

Three  months  later,  however,  in  response  to  the  call  for 
Virginia's  quota  of  troops,  he  wrote  to  the  authorities  at 
Washington:  "You  have  chosen  to  inaugurate  civil  war; 
and,  having  done  so,  we  will  meet  you  in  a  spirit  as  deter 
mined  as  the  Administration  has  exhibited  toward  the 
South/' 

Robert  E.  Lee,  anticipating  the  event,  in  January,  1861, 
wrote : 

"I  shall  mourn  for  my  country  and  for  the  welfare 
and  progress  of  mankind.  If  the  Union  is  dissolved  and 
the  Government  disrupted,  I  shall  return  to  my  native 
state  and  share  the  miseries  of  my  people,  and,  save  in 
defense,  will  draw  my  sword  on  none."1 

Three  months  later,  in  accepting  the  command  of 
Virginia's  army  of  defense,  he  said:  "Trusting  in  Almighty 
God,  an  approving  conscience  and  the  aid  of  my  fellow- 
citizens,  I  devote  myself  to  the  service  of  my  native  state." 

Equally  significant  were  the  sentiments  of  the  wife  of 
this  great  Virginian.  Writing  to  General  Winfield  Scott, 
May  5th,  1861,  Mary  Custis  Lee  said:  "No  honors  can 
reconcile  us  to  this  fratricidal  war  which  we  would  have 
laid  down  our  lives  freely  to  avert  .  .  .  Oh !  that  you  could 
command  peace  to  our  distracted  country.  Yours  in 
sorrow  and  sadness."2 

John  Janney,  on  accepting  the  Presidency  of  the  Virginia 
Convention,  February  13th,  1861,  said: 

"Gentlemen,  there  is  a  flag  .  .  .  which  now  floats  over 
this  Capitol  on  which  there  is  a  star  representing  this 
ancient  commonwealth  and  my  earnest  prayer,  in  which 
I  know  every  member  of  this  body  will  cordially  unite,  is 

^Memoirs  of  Robert  E.  Lee,  Long,  p.  88. 

2See  letter  from  Mrs.  R.  E.  Lee  to  General  Winfield  Scott,  in 
Life  of  Robert  E.  Lee,  Fitzhugh  Lee,  p.  93. 


RACIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  VIRGINIANS      303 

that  it  may  remain  there  forever,  provided  always  that 
its  lustre  is  untarnished." 

On  the  23d  of  April,  1861,  in  notifying  Robert  E.  Lee 
of  his  appointment  as  chief  in  command  of  Virginia's 
militia,  he  said: 

"  Virginia  having  taken  her  position,  as  far  as  the  power 
of  this  Convention  extends,  we  stand,  animated  by  one 
impulse,  governed  by  one  desire  and  one  determination — 
and  that  is,  that  she  shall  be  defended;  and  that  no  spot 
of  her  soil  shall  be  polluted  by  the  foot  of  an  invader."1 

Matthew  F.  Maury  writing  on  the  llth  of  May,  1861, 
said:  "I  grant  them  (certain  of  his  Northern  friends) 
sincere,  but  I  cannot  but  lament  in  the  depths  of  my  heart 
and  in  excruciating  agony  that  their  delusion  is  such  as 
to  have  already  allowed  the  establishment  of  a  military 
despotism." 

Again  he  wrote :  "  All  of  us  are  of  one  mind,  very  cool, 
very  determined,  no  desire  for  a  conflict.  We  are  on  the 
defensive."2 

John  B.  Baldwin,  when  asked  after  President  Lincoln's 
proclamation  what  would  be  the  position  of  the  Union 
men  in  Virginia,  wrote : 

"We  have  no  Union  men  in  Virginia  now.  But  those 
who  were  Union  men  will  stand  to  their  guns,  and  make  a 
fight  that  will  shine  out  on  the  page  of  history  as  an  example 
of  what  a  brave  people  can  do  after  exhausting  every 
means  of  pacification."3 

In  addition  to  all  the  considerations  set  forth  in  the 
foregoing  pages,  the  student  of  history  must,  if  he  would 
fully  appreciate  the  forces  which  controlled  their  action 
with  respect  to  secession  and  the  Civil  War,  take  into 

lJournal  of  Virginia  Convention,  1861,  pp.  9  and  187. 
2Life  of  Matthew  Fontaine  Maury,  Corbin,  p.  196. 
^School  History  of  the  United  States,  Jones,  p.  239. 


304  VIRGINIA'S  STAND   PREDETERMINED 

account  the  racial  characteristics  of  the  Virginia  people. 
A  full  portrayal  of  these  characteristics,  strongly  marked 
and  persisting  from  generation  to  generation,  must  be  the 
work  of  some  other  pen.  Suffice  it  here  to  say  that  as 
a  people  they  exalted  honor  and  courage — both  in  the 
individual  and  in  the  clan;  they  exhibited  the  strength  of 
the  idealist,  combined,  on  the  part  of  many,  with  the 
limitations  of  the  doctrinaire;  they  decided  questions  by 
the  standards  of  abstract  right  rather  than  in  their  relation 
to  the  duties  and  interests  of  other  peoples  and  other 
times;  they  were  self-reliant,  content  to  justify  the  integrity 
of  their  conduct  to  their  own  consciences  rather  than  to 
the  world;  they  were  tenacious  of  their  rights  and  regarded  a 
threatened  invasion  as  not  only  justifying  but  compelling  re 
sistance  if  the  ideals  and  conditions  which  make  men  patri 
ots  and  freemen  were  to  find  an  abiding  place  in  their  state. 

"We  are  not  contending,"  wrote  Washington  in  1774, 
"  against  paying  the  duty  of  three  pence  per  pound  on  tea 
as  burdensome,  no,  it  is  the  right  only  that  we  have  all 
along  disputed."1 

"It  is  the  principle,"  wrote  Lee  in  1861,  "I  contend 
for,  not  individual  or  private  benefit."2 

Such  were  some  of  the  predominant  characteristics  of 
the  people  whom  President  Lincoln's  proclamation  called 
to  war.  In  the  conflict  thus  joined  between  the  Federal 
Government  and  the  Southern  Confederacy,  the  people  of 
Virginia  took  a  stand,  predetermined  by  the  beliefs  and 
avowals  of  successive  generations,  and  impelled  by  an 
unswerving  idealism  found  their  supreme  incentive  to 
action  in  their  determination  to  maintain  the  integrity  of 
principle. 

lHistory  of  the  United  States,  Bancroft,  Vol.  4,  p.  29. 
^Memoirs  of  Robert  E.  Lee,  Long,  p.  88. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Abridgment  of  Debates  in  Congress. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis.     Lee  at  Appomattox  and  Other  Papers, 

2nd  Edition,  1902. 
Adams,  Rev.  Nehemiah.     A  South  Side  View  of  Slavery,  or  Three 

Months  at  the  South  in  1854. 
African  Repository  and  Colonial  Journal. 

American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings  of.     New  Series,  Vol.  V. 
American  Colonization  Society,  Reports  of.     1817-1860. 
Annals  of  Congress. 

Arnold,  Isaac  N.     Lincoln  and  Slavery,  Chicago,  1866. 
Ballagh,  J.  C.     History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  1902. 
Bancroft,  George.     History  of  the  United  States. 
Barnes,  Thurlow  Weed.     Thurlow  Weed,  1884. 
Elaine,  J .  G.     Twenty  years  of  Congress. 
Brougham,  Lord.     Political  Philosophy,  1849. 
Bruce,  Philip  Alexander.     Life  of  Robert  E.  Lee,  1907. 
Burgess,  J.  W.     The  Civil  War  and  The  Constitution  (2  Volumes). 
Burke,  Edmund,  Works  of.     Little,  Brown  &  Go's.  Edition. 
Chadwick,    F.  E.     Causes    of    the    Civil    War,    1906.     (American 

Nation  Series.) 

Chambers,  William.     American  Slavery  and  Colour,  1857. 
Chandler,  J.  A.  C.     Representation  in  Virginia. 
Channing,  William  Ellery,  Works  of.     American  Unitarian  Society. 
Colton,  Calvin.     Private  Correspondence  of  Henry  Clay,  1855. 
Congressional  Debates.     Volume  XIII. 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Constitution  of  Virginia,  1829—1830. 
Constitution  of  Virginia,  1850—1851. 
Conway,  Moncure  D.     Life  of  Edmund  Randolph. 
Cox,  S.  S.     Three  Decades  of  Federal  Legislation. 
Corbin,  D.  F.  M.     Life  of  Matthew  Fontaine  Maury,  1888. 
Crittenden,  L.  E.     Proceedings  of  Peace  Convention,  Washington, 

1861. 

Curtis,  George  Ticknor.     Life  of  James  Buchanan  (2  Volumes),  1883. 
Dabney,  R.  L.     Defence  of  Virginia. 

305 


306  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Davis,  Jefferson.    Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government 

(2  Volumes),  1881. 

Dew,  T.  R.    An  Essay  on  Slavery,  1849. 
Dillon,  John  F.     Life,  Character  and  Judicial  Services  of  John 

Marshall  (3  Volumes),  1903. 
Diplomatic  Correspondence,  1861. 

DuBois,  W.  E.  B.     Suppression  of  the  African  Slave  Trade.     Har 
vard  Historical  Studies,  Vol.  I,  1896. 

Dunn,  Jr.,  J.  P.     Indiana,  A  Redemption  from  Slavery,  1888. 
Earle,  Thomas.     Life,  Travels  and  Opinions  of  Benjamin  Lundy, 

1847. 

Fiske,  John.     American  Revolution  (2  Volumes),  1891. 
Fiske,  John.     Critical  Period  of  American  History,  1783 — 1789. 

Published  1888. 

Fiske,  John.     Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors  (2  Volumes),  1897. 
Frothingham,  0.  B.     Gerrit  Smith,  A  Biography,  1878. 
Frothingham,  0.  B.     Theodore  Parker,  A  Biography,  1874. 
Garland,  H.  A.    Life  of  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  (2  Volumes), 

1850. 
Garrison,  Wendell  Phillips  and  Francis  J.     William  Lloyd  Garrison, 

The  Story  of  his  Life,  Told  by  his  Children  (4  Volumes),  1885, 

1889. 

Goodloe,  Daniel  R.     Southern  Platform,  1855. 
Greeley,  Horace.    The  American  Conflict  (2  Volumes),  1864,  1866. 
Green,  J.  R.     A  Short  History  of  the  English  People. 
Harris,  N.  Dwight.     History  of  Negro  Servitude  in  Illinois,  and  of 

Slavery  Agitation  in  that  State,  1904. 
Hart,    A.    B.     Slavery    and    Abolition      (The    American    Nation 

Series),  1906. 
Helper,  H.  R.     The  Impending  Crisis  in  the  South.     How  to  Meet 

it,  1857. 
Henderson,  G.  F.  R.     Stonewall  Jackson  and  the  American  Civil 

War  (2  Volumes),  1898. 

Hening's  Statutes  at  Large.     (Virginia)  (13  Volumes). 
Henry,  William  Wirt.     Life  of  Patrick  Henry  (3  Volumes). 
Howe,  Henry.     Historical  Collections  of  Ohio,  1891.     Volumes  I, 

II,  and  III. 
Howe,  W.  A.  DeWolfe.     General  Sherman's  Letters  Home,  Scrib- 

ner's  Magazine,  April,  1909. 
Howison,   R.   R.     History   of   Virginia    from    its    Settlement   by 

Europeans  to  the  Present  Time  (2  Volumes),  1848. 
Hunt,  Gaillard.     Life  of  James  Madison. 
Irving,  Washington.     Life  of  Washington  (5  Volumes),  1856, 1859. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  307 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  Writings  of.     Ford  (10  Volumes). 

Johns,  John.     William  Meade,  Memoir  of  his  Life,  1867. 

Jones,  J.  William.     School  History  of  the  United  States,  1898. 

Journal  of  Illinois  Convention,  1862. 

Journal  of  The  General  Assembly  of  Wisconsin,  1859. 

Journal  of  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses. 

Journal  of  Virginia  Convention,  1861. 

Journal  of  Virginia  House  of  Delegates,  1832. 

Journal  of  Virginia  Senate,  1832. 

Journal  of  Virginia  House  of  Delegates,  Extra  Session,  1861. 

Kennedy,  J.  P.     William  Wirt,  Memoirs  of  his  Life  (2  Volumes), 

1849. 

Lee,  Fitzhugh.     Life  of  Robert  E.  Lee. 
Lee,  R.  H.     Richard  Henry  Lee,  Memoirs  of  his  Life  (3  Volumes), 

1825. 

Liberia  Bulletin. 
Lincoln-Douglas  Debates. 

Long,  A.  L.  and  Wright,  M. J.     Memoirs  of  Robert  E.  Lee,  1886. 
Lolhrop,  Thornton  K.     Life  of  William  H.  Seward,  1899. 
Lunt,  George.     The  Origin  of  the  Late  War,  1866. 
Martyn,  Carlos.     Wendell  Phillips,  The  Agitator,  1890. 
Marshall,   John.     The  Writings  of  Washington   (10  Volumes). 
McGuire,  Hunter  and  Christian,  George  L.    The  Confederate  Cause 

and  Conduct  in  the  War  Between  the  States,  1907. 
McDougall,  Marion  G.  Fugitive  Slaves,  Boston,  1891. 
McMaster,  John  B.  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States 

from  the  Revolution  to  the  Civil  War  (5  Volumes),  1883,  1900. 
Meade,  William.     Old  Churches,  Ministers  and  Families  of  Virginia 

(2  Volumes),  1861. 
Mercer,    Charles   Fenton.     An   Exposition   of  the   Weakness  and 

Inefficiency  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 
Merriam,  George  S.     The  Negro  and  the  Nation,  1906. 
Moore,  George  H.     Notes  on  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  1866. 
Morgan,  George.     The  True  Patrick  Henry,  1907. 
Morris,  Dr.  Caspar.     Memoir  of  Margaret  Mercer. 
Morse,  J.  T.     Life  of  Abraham  Lincoln  (2  Volumes),  1899. 
Nicolay,    J.    G.,   and   Hay,   John.     Abraham   Lincoln,    Speeches, 

Letters  and  State  Papers  (2  Volumes). 
Nicolay,  J.  G.,  and  Hay,  John.     Abraham  Lincoln,  A  History, 

(10  Volumes),  1890. 

Nties,  Hezekiah.     Niles'  Weekly  Register  (76  Volumes),  1811-1849. 
Northrup,  A.  J.     Slavery  in  New  York,  State  Library  Bulletins. 

History  No.  4,  1900. 


308  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Olmsted,  Frederick  Law.    A  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States 

(2  Volumes),  New  Edition,  1904. 
Outlook,  The.     New  York,  February  9th,  1903. 
Oregon,  Organic  and  Other  Laws  of. 
Perry,  T.  S.     Life  and  Letters  of  Francis  Lieber. 
Phillips,    Wendell.     Speeches,  Lectures    and    Letters.      Lee   and 

Shepard,  1892. 
Pickett,    William    P.     The    Negro    Problem,   Abraham   Lincoln's 

Solution. 
Pierce,  Edward  L.     Memoirs  and  Letters  of  Charles  Sumner   (4 

Volumes),  1877,  1893. 
Plymouth  Colonial  Records. 
Poore,  Ben  Perley.     The  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  Colonial 

Charters  and  Other  Organic  Laws  of  the  United  States.     2 

Parts,  1877. 
Randolph,   Thomas  Jefferson.     Pamphlet,  September   25th,    1870. 

Virginia  Historical  Society. 
Raymond,  Henry  J.     Life,   Public  Services  and  State  Papers  of 

Abraham  Lincoln,  1864. 
Rhodes,  James   Ford.     History  of   the   United  States   from   the 

Compromise  of  1850  (7  Volumes),  1893,  1906. 
Richardson,   J.   D.     Messages  and   Papers  of  the   Presidents   (9 

Volumes),  1896,  1897. 
Richmond  Whig,  The 
Richmond  Dispatch,  The. 
Richmond  Enquirer,  The. 
Rives,  William  C.     James  Madison,  History  of  his  Life  and  Times 

(2  Volumes),  1859. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore.     Thomas  H.  Benton,  1899. 
Ruffner,  Henry.     The  Ruffner  Pamphlet,  1847. 
Russell,  William  H.     My  Diary,  North  and  South,  1863. 
Sanborn,  Frank  B.     Life  and  Letters  of  John  Brown,  1886. 
Schouler,    James.     History    of    the    United    States    (6  Volumes), 

1886- '99. 
Schouler,   William.     History  of  Massachusetts  in  the  Civil  War 

(2  Volumes),  1868,  1871. 

Schukers,  J.  W.     Life  and  Public  Services  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  1874. 
Slaughter,  Philip.     The  Virginian  History  of  African  Colonization, 

1855. 
Slavery  Debate  in  the  Virginia  Legislature  of  1832,  Thomas  W. 

White,  1832. 

Smith,  William  Henry.    A  Political  History  of  Slavery  (2  Volumes), 
1903. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  309 

Spears,  John  R.    The  American  Slave  Trade,  1900. 

Stearns,  Frank  Preston.     The  Life  and  Public  Services  of  George 

Luther  Stearns,  1907. 
Stephens,  Alexander  H.     A  Constitutional  View  of  the  Late  War 

Between  the  States  (2  Volumes). 
Stiles,  Robert.     Four  Years  Under  Marse  Robert. 
Story,  Joseph.     Story  on  the  Constitution. 
Tocqueville,  Alexis  de.     Democrary  in  America  (2  Volumes),  1840. 

Tr.  by  Henry  Reeves. 
Tucker,  George.     Progress  of  The  United  States  in  Population  and 

Wealth  in  Fifty  Years,  1843. 
Tucker,  St.  George.     Tucker's  Blackstone,  1803. 
Tucker,  John  Randolph.     History  of  the  Constitution. 
Tyler,  Lyon  G.     Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers  (2  Volumes),  1884, 

1896. 

United  States  Reports.     Howard,  Vol.  XXI. 
United  States  Reports.     Peters,  Vol.  XVI. 
Washburne,  E.  B.     Sketch  of  Edward  Coles,  1882. 
Whipple,  E.  P.     Webster's  Great  Speeches  and  Orations,  1879. 
Wilson,  Henry.     History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power 

in  America  (3  Volumes),  1872,  1877. 
Williams,   George   W.     History  of  the  Negro  Race  in  America, 

1619-1880  (2  Volumes),  1883.' 
Wisconsin  Reports.     Volume  III. 
Wise,  John  S.     End  of  an  Era,  1899. 
Wolseley,  General  Viscount.     General  Lee,  1906. 
Wright,    Marcus    J.     Trial    of     John    Brown.     Reprinted    from 

Southern  Historical  Papers,  1889. 


UNPUBLISHED 

Alexandria  County  Court  Records.    Will   Book  No.   4,   Clerk's 

Office. 
Amherst  County  Court  Records.     Will  Books  Nos.  11,  13  and  16, 

Clerk's  Office. 

Barton,  Robert  T.     Letter  to  Author,  dated  March  19th,  1907. 
Bath  County  Court  Records.     Will  Book  No.  4,  Clerk's  Office. 
Brown  County  Court  Records  (Ohio).     Record  of  Deeds,  Vol.  A. 
Byrd,  Colonel  William.     Letter  to  Lord  Egmont,  dated  July  12th. 

1736.     Byrd  Manuscripts.     Lower  Brandon,  Virginia. 
Cabell   County   Court   Records.     West    Virginia.     Will   Book   A, 

Clerk's  Office. 
Campbell   County   Court   Records.      Deed   Book   No.    2,    Clerk's 

Office. 

Clarke  County  Court  Records.  Deed  Book  B.,  Clerk's  Office. 
Culpeper  County  Court  Records.  Will  Book  F.,  Clerk's  Office. 
Dinwiddie  County  Court  Records.  Will  Book  for  year  1803, 

Clerk's  Office. 
Fairfax  County  Court  Records.     Will  Book  for  year  1799,  Clerk's 

Office. 
Fairfax  County  Court  Records.     Will  Books  Nos.  1  and  7,  Clerk's 

Office. 

Fauquier  County  Court  Records.     Will  Book  No.  25,  Clerk's  Office. 
Henrico  County  Court  Records.     Will  Books  Nos.  12  and  14,  Clerk's 

Office. 
Isle  of  Wight  County  Court  Records.     Deed  Books  Nos.  15  and  39, 

Clerk's   Office. 
Johnston,  Dr.  George  Ben.     Letter  to  Author,  dated  April  17th, 

1907.     Virginia  Historical  Society. 
Lee,  G.  W.  Custis.      Letter  to  Author,  dated  February  4th,  1907. 

Virginia  Historical  Society. 
Lee,  Daniel  M.     Letter  to  Author,  dated  May  28th,  1908.     Virginia 

Historical  Society. 

Mac  Gill,  James.     Letter  to  Author,  dated  April  20th,  1908.     Vir 
ginia  Historical  Society. 
Madison  County  Court  Records.    Will  Books  Nos.  8  and  9,  Clerk's 

Office, 

310 


UNPUBLISHED  311 

Maury,   Richard  L.     Letter  to   Author,   dated  June    1st,    1907. 

Virginia  Historical  Society. 
Orange    County   Court    Records.     Will   Books   Nos.   10  and    12, 

Clerk's  Office. 
Pittsylvania   County  Court  Records.     Will  Book  No.   1,  Clerk's 

Office. 
Prince  Edward  County  Court  Records.     Will  Book  for  year  1797, 

Clerk's  Office. 
Prince  George  County  Court  Records.     Will  Book  No.   1   (New 

Records),  Clerk's  Office. 
Prince  William  County  Court  Records.     Will  Books  M.  and  Q., 

Clerk's  Office. 

Rappahannock  County  Court  Records.     Will  Book  4,  Clerk's  Office. 
Stuart,  Mrs.  Flora.     Letter  to  Author,  dated  March  25th,  1908. 

Virginia  Historical  Society. 

Sussex  County  Court  Records.     Will  Book  K,  Clerk's  Office. 
Thorn,  Cameron  E.     Letter  to  Author,  dated  July  15th,  1908. 
Westmoreland  County  Court  Records.     Deed  and  Will  Book  No.  18, 

Clerk's  Office. 
Washington  County  Court  Records.    Deed  Book  for  year  1793, 

Clerk's  Office. 


INDEX 


Abolitionists,  adverse  influence 
of,  upon  anti-slavery  sentiment 
in  Virginia,  43,  48,  51,  59;  char 
acter  of  assaults  of,  upon  sla 
very  and  Virginians,  48,  49; 
views  of  Thomas  Jefferson  Ran 
dolph  upon,  51;  views  of  George 
Tucker  upon,  51,  52;  views  of 
Henry  Ruffner  upon,  52;  views 
of  William  Ellery  Channing 
upon,  53;  views  of  Abraham 
Lincoln  upon,  54,  55;  views  of 
Daniel  Webster  upon,  55;  views 
of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  upon,  56; 
views  of  Thomas  Ewing  upon, 
56;  views  of  George  Lunt  upon, 
57;  views  of  George  Ticknor 
Curtis  upon,  57;  views  of  Theo 
dore  Roosevelt  upon,  58;  views 
of  William  Henry  Smith  upon, 
58;  attitude  of,  contrasted  with 
that  of  Republicans,  197,  198; 
efforts  of,  to  defeat  fugitive 
slave  law,  204,  205;  purpose 
and  methods  of,  214,  215; 
disunion  sentiments  of,  217; 
contended  that  Union  alone 
protected  slaveholders,  219;  see 
John  Brown,  Thomas  Went- 
worth  Higginson,  William  Lloyd 
Garrison,  Theodore  Parker, 
Wendell  Phillips. 

Abolition  of  Slavery  in  Virginia, 
petition  for,  from  citizens  of 
Staunton,  129. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  estimate 
of  Virginians  at  Gettysburg, 


140;  estimate  of  racial  diffi 
culties,  184;  his  analysis  of 
Virginia's  grounds  of  secession, 
256;  records  effects  of  Virginia's 
declaration  for  union,  257;  on 
coercion  as  the  issue,  259;  views 
as  to  Virginia's  unchanged  alle 
giance  to  state  sovereignty,  299. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  on  action 
of  anti-slavery  societies,  1835, 
177;  not  an  abolitionist,  198; 
views  as  to  right  of  secession, 
295. 

Adams,  Reverend  Nehemiah,  on 
assaults  upon  Virginia  by  Ab 
olitionists,  48,  49;  on  feeling  in 
Virginia  regarding  slave  traders, 
142;  on  reactionary  effects  of 
Abolitionists,  179. 

African  Slave  Trade,  early  oppo 
sition  to,  in  Virginia,  16;  letter 
of  Colonel  William  Byrd  against, 
16;  petition  of  Virginia  House 
of  Burgesses  against,  1772,  18; 
arraignment  of  in  original  draft 
of  Declaration  of  Independence, 
19;  Virginia  Colonial  Conven 
tion  1774,  hostile  to,  21;  decla 
ration  against  in  Continental 
Congress,  1774,  21,  22;  Vir 
ginia's  statute  abolishing,  1778, 
25;  George  Mason's  denuncia 
tion  of,  30;  efforts  of  Virgininans 
in  Congress  to  suppress,  33; 
President  Jefferson's  message, 
1806-07,  on  suppression  of, 
34;  President  Madison's  mes- 


313 


314 


INDEX 


sage,  1810,  recommending  more 
stringent  laws  against,  35;  act 
of  1819  against,  36;  joint 
resolution  of  Congress,  1823, 
against,  36;  "Right  of  Search" 
in  suppression  of,  advocated 
by  President  Monroe,  1824, 
37;  President  Tyler's  message 
against,  1841-42,  38;  appeal  of 
Henry  A.  Wise  against,  1845, 
38-39;  President  Taylor's  mes 
sage  against,  1849,  39. 

Agriculture  in  Virginia,  injurious 
effects  of  slavery  upon,  128-137. 

Amalgamation  of  blacks  and 
whites,  Governor  James  Mc 
Dowell  on,  165;  William  C. 
Rives  on,  166;  M.  de  Tocque- 
ville  on,  166;  Stephen  A.  Doug 
las  on,  167;  General  William 
T.  Sherman  on,  167;  William 
H.  Seward  on,  167;  Abraham 
Lincoln  on,  168. 

American  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
its  organization,  1833,  204; 
disunion  resolutions  of,  May, 
1844,  217. 

American  Civil  War,  character 
of,  1-3;  parties  to,  2,  3;  causes 
of,  3-5;  objects  for  which  it 
was  waged,  5-9. 

American  Colonization  Society, 
its  organization,  1816,  61;  es 
tablishes  colony  of  Liberia, 
1819,  62,  63;  organization  of 
auxiliary  societies  to,  in  Vir 
ginia,  63;  work  of,  impeded  by 
pro-slavery  men  and  Abolition 
ists,  65. 

Amendment  to  constitution,  pro 
posed  by  Congress,  1861,  safe 
guarding  slavery,  195;  ratified 
by  Ohio  and  Maryland,  195. 


Annapolis,  convention  assembles 
at,  1786,  to  amend  Articles  of 
Confederation,  242. 

Anti-Slavery  sentiments,  of  prom 
inent  Virginians,  82-101. 

Apportionment,  basis  of,  for  rep 
resentation  in  Virginia  Legis 
lature,  145,  175. 

Arkansas,  secedes  because  of 
Lincoln's  call  for  troops,  230. 

Bacon,  Reverend  Leonard,  esti 
mate  of  condition  of  free 
negroes,  1831,  162. 

Baldwin,  John  B.,  a  Union  leader 
in  Virginia  Convention,  1861, 
259;  urges  President  Lincoln  to 
abandon  coercion,  270;  on  posi 
tion  of  Union  men  in  Virginia 
after  her  secession,  303. 

Ballagh,  J.  H.,  on  Virginia's  pri 
macy  in  prohibiting  African 
slave  trade,  25;  on  slavery  de 
bate  in  Virginia's  Legislature, 
1832,  46;  on  estimate  of  num 
ber  of  slaves  freed  in  Virginia, 
102. 

Bancroft,  George,  on  Virginia's 
effort  to  prohibit  importation 
of  slaves,  17;  on  Virginia's 
Bill  of  Rights,  23;  on  Ordinance 
of  1787,  27;  on  injurious  effect 
of  slavery  on  Virginia,  128; 
estimate  of  Virginia's  action 
in  calling  for  intercolonial  com 
mittees  of  correspondence,  239; 
estimate  of  Virginia's  action 
in  securing  Convention  at  Phil 
adelphia,  1787,  243. 

Banks,  Governor  N.  P.,  addresses 
Legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
January,  1861,  on  "personal 
liberty  laws,"  209. 


INDEX 


315 


Barton,  D.  W.,  emancipates  slaves, 
70. 

Barton,  Robert  T.,  letter  to 
author  regarding  above,  70,  71. 

Bates,  Edwin,  his  reply  as  Attor 
ney  General  to  President  Lin 
coln's  request  for  opinions  on 
provisioning  Fort  Sumter,  287 
and  289. 

Baylor,  George,  remarks  in  Vir 
ginia  Convention,  1861,  on 
secession  and  coercion,  265; 
on  coercing  Cotton  States, 
294. 

Berry,  Henry,  anti-slavery  senti 
ments,  93. 

Bill  of  Rights,  Virginia's,  on 
inherent  rights  of  men,  22-23. 

"Black  Belt"  in  Virginia,  its 
white  and  slave  population, 
126. 

Blackburn,  Samuel,  will  emanci 
pating  slaves,  114. 

Elaine,  James  G.,  on  slavery  in 
the  territories,  189;  on  action 
of  Republicans  in  Congress, 
1861,  abandoning  their  posi 
tion  on  the  subject,  189;  on 
protection  afforded  to  slavery 
by  the  Union,  226. 

Blair,  Montgomery,  replies,  as 
Postmaster  General,  to  Presi 
dent  Lincoln's  request  for 
opinions  on  provisioning  Fort 
Sumter,  287  and  289. 

Bland,  Theodoric,  efforts  in  first 
Congress,  to  tax  importation 
of  slaves,  33. 

Boiling,  Philip  A.,  anti-slavery 
sentiments  of,  95;  on  injurious 
effects  of  slavery,  131. 

Bonner,  Jesse,  will  emancipating 
slaves,  108. 


Booth,  Sherman  M.,  convicted  by 
Federal  Court,  and  discharged 
by  State  Court  of  Wisconsin, 
207. 

Branch,  Thomas,  remarks  of,  in 
Virginia  Convention,  1861,  on 
President  Lincoln's  First  In 
augural,  266. 

Brent,  George  W.,  remarks  of, 
in  Virginia  Convention,  1861, 
on  influence  of  Abolitionists  in 
North,  and  Free  Traders  in 
South,  in  precipitating  the 
Civil  War,  266. 

Broadnax,  William  H.,  views  ex 
pressed  in  slavery  debate,  1832, 
47;  anti-slavery  sentiments  of, 
92. 

Brokenbrough,  John  W.,  delegate 
from  Virginia  to  Peace  Con 
ference,  1861,  250. 

Brown  Co.,  Ohio,  colonization  of 
Samuel  Gists's  slaves  in,  66. 

Brown,  John,  John  WT.  Burgess's 
estimate  of  reactionary  influ 
ence  of  his  Raid  and  of  North 
ern  sympathy,  181;  disastrous 
influence  of  his  Raid  upon  sen 
timent  of  the  South,  182;  Lin 
coln's  estimate  of  his  Raid,  198; 
captured  by  United  States  sol 
diers,  216;  sympathy  of  leading 
Abolitionists  with,  222;  prom 
inent  Abolitionists,  parties  to 
his  venture,  223. 

Brougham,  Lord,  on  character 
of  Federal  Government,  295. 

Buchanan,  James,  extract  from 
message,  as  President,  1860. 
on  influence  of  Abolitionists, 
180;  message  to  Congress,  1860, 
on  "personal  liberty  laws," 
208. 


316 


INDEX 


Burgesses  —  House  of,  their  peti 
tion,  1772,  against  slave  trade, 
18;  their  resolutions  against 
Stamp  Act,  1765,  238;  pledging 
support  to  Massachusetts,  1768, 
238;  asserting  resistance  to 
Great  Britain,  1769,  238;  pro 
viding  for  intercolonial  com 
mittees  of  correspondence,  1773, 
239;  fixing  day  for  fasting  and 
prayer,  1774,  239. 

Burgess,  J.  W.,  on  reactionary 
influence  of  John  Brown's  Raid, 
181;  on  effect  of  sympathy 
evinced  for  John  Brown  in 
many  parts  of  the  North,  181. 

Burke,  Edmund,  on  England's 
participation  in  slave  trade  and 
Virginia'8  opposition,  17;  on 
John  Hampden's  position,  233. 

Byrd,  Colonel  William,  anti- 
slavery  sentiments  of,  1736, 
16,  Note  1. 

Caldwell,  E.  B.,  prominent  in 
organizing  American  Coloniza 
tion  Society,  61. 

Cameron,  Simon,  his  reply,  as 
Secretary  of  War,  to  President 
Lincoln's  request  for  opinion 
on  provisioning  Fort  Sumter, 
286  and  289. 

Carlile,  John  S.,  on  protection 
of  slavery  by  the  Union,  228. 

Carr,  Dabney,  author  of  resolu 
tions  providing  for  intercolo 
nial  committees  of  correspond 
ence,  239. 

Carroll,  Charles,  of  Carrolton, 
President  of  American  Colo 
nization  Society,  62. 

Carter,  Robert,  deeds  emancipa 
ting  slaves,  106. 


Cass  Co.,  Michigan,  colonization 
in,  of  Sampson  Sanders'  slaves, 
70. 

Chadwick,  F.  E.,  analysis  of 
census  showing  number  of  Vir 
ginia's  slaveholders,  125;  esti 
mate  of  number  of  Virginians 
living  beyond  the  State,  1860, 
129;  on  the  prominent  men 
parties  to  John  Brown's  Raid, 
223. 

Chandler,  John  A.,  anti-slavery 
sentiments,  92. 

Chandler,  Zachariah,  letter  re 
garding  Peace  Conference,  1861, 
253. 

Channing,  William  Ellery,  on 
adverse  influence  of  Abolition 
ists,  53. 

Chase,  Salmon  P.,  on  impossi 
bility  of  complete  enforcement 
of  fugitive  slave  law,  191  and 
210;  replies,  as  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  to  President 
Lincoln's  request  for  opinion 
on  provisioning  Fort  Sumter, 
288,  289. 

Clark,  General  George  Rogers, 
Conqueror  of  Northwest  Ter 
ritory,  26  and  241. 

Clay,  Henry,  presides  at  meeting 
to  organize  American  Coloniza 
tion  Society,  1816,  61;  Presi 
dent  of  American  Colonization 
Society,  62;  on  emancipation 
and  colonization  of  negroes,  76, 
77;  on  condition  of  free  negroes 
in  1829,  162. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  place  of  pro 
posed  Disunion  Convention, 
October,  1857,  218. 

Cocke,  Eliza  W.,  deed  emanci 
pating  slaves,  123. 


INDEX 


317 


Coercion,  controlling  factor  in 
determining  Virginia's  seces 
sion,  256;  Robert  E.  Lee  denies 
ethical  right  of,  293;  William 
C.  Rives  denies  same,  293; 
George  Baylor  denies  same,  294 ; 
M.  de  Tocqueville  denies  right 
of  by  Federal  Government,  294; 
Lord  Brougham  denies  same, 
295. 

Coles,  Edward,  emancipates  his 
slaves  and  colonizes  them  in 
Illinois,  66,  67;  prosecuted  and 
fined  for  this  act,  67. 

Coles,  Robert,  killed  at  battle 
of  Roanoke  Island,  67. 

Colonization  of  negroes,  appro 
priation  by  Virginia  Legisla 
ture  in  aid  of,  59,  64;  origin  of 
the  idea  of,  60;  resolutions  of 
Virginia  Legislature  favoring, 
1800,  60;  same,  1805,  60;  same, 
1816,  61;  organization  of  Amer 
ican  Society  to  promote,  61; 
by  individual  slaveholders,  66- 
73;  views  of  Jefferson,  Clay, 
and  Lincoln  on,  75-81. 

Colorado,  organized  as  a  terri 
tory  without  prohibition  as  to 
slavery,  1861,  190. 

Commerce,  decline  of,  in  Vir 
ginia,  134  and  138. 

Congress,  1789,  efforts  of  Vir 
ginians  in,  to  tax  importation 
of  slaves,  33;  resolutions 
adopted  by,  defining  attitude 
regarding  slavery,  1861,  194; 
amendment  to  constitution  pro 
posed  by,  1861,  195;  resolution 
of,  defining  attitude  on  purpose 
of  War,  1861,  197;  Act  of,  Feb 
ruary  12,  1793,  regarding  return 
of  fugitive  slaves,  203;  Act  of, 


September  18,  1850,  regarding 
fugitive  slaves,  206;  resolu 
tions  adopted  February,  1861, 
regarding  fugitive  slave  act,  209. 

Congress,  Continental  of  1774, 
Virginia's  anti-slavery  atti 
tude  defined  in,  21,  22. 

Congress,  Continental  of  1784, 
accepts  Virginia's  deed  ceding 
Northwest  Territory,  26. 

Connecticut,  Statute  of,  1833, 
regarding  establishment  of 
schools  for  non-resident  negroes, 
169;  "personal  liberty  laws,"  206. 

Constitution,  Virginia's  opposi 
tion  to  clause  permitting  Afri 
can  slave  trade,  29;  clauses  of, 
regarding  fugitives  from  jus 
tice  and  fugitive  slaves,  201; 
copies  burned  by  Abolitionists 
at  public  meetings,  220. 

Controversy  regarding  slavery, 
status  of  at  time  of  Virginia's 
secession,  185-200. 

Convention,  Virginia's  Colonial, 
1777,  resolves  against  slave 
trade,  21;  Virginia's,  1861,  ma 
jority  of  delegates  to,  Union 
men,  256;  report  of  committee 
from,  on  reply  of  President 
Lincoln,  278. 

Cotton  States,  effect  of  with 
drawal  of  representatives  of, 
from  Congress,  189;  sent  no 
delegates  to  Peace  Conference, 
1861,  253;  coercion  of,  by 
Federal  Government,  crucial 
factor  in  determining  Virginia's 
secession,  270;  coercion  of, 
repugnant  to  many  people 
both  North  and  South,  275; 
Virginia's  attitude  regarding 
their  secession,  291. 


318 


INDEX 


Curtis,  George  Ticknor,  on  ad 
verse  influence  of  Abolition 
ists,  57;  attests  anti-slavery 
sentiment  in  Virginia  in  1832, 
144. 

Custis,  G.  W.  P.,  furnishes  asy 
lum  for  Liberian  colonists,  63; 
anti-slavery  sentiments  of,  96; 
emancipated  his  slaves,  102; 
will,  emancipating  slaves,  122. 

Dakota,  organized  as  a  territory, 
1861,  without  prohibition  of 
slavery,  190. 

Da  vies,  Arthur  B.,  will  emanci 
pating  slaves,  121. 

Davis,  Jefferson,  on  attitude  of 
Southern  Confederacy  towards 
the  Union  and  slavery,  6;  on 
the  right  of  revolution,  292. 

Declaration  of  Independence, 
clause  against  slavery  and  slave 
trade,  stricken  out  of,  19,  20. 

Deeds  and  wills  emancipating 
slaves,  specimens  of,  104-124. 

Dew,  Thomas  R.,  on  slavery 
debate  of  1832,  47. 

Disunion,  Abolitionists  advocate, 
217. 

Disunion  Convention,  meets  at 
Worcester,  Mass.,  1857,  218; 
fails  to  assemble  at  Cleveland, 
1857,  218. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  on  negro 
problem,  167. 

Du  Bois,  W.  E.  B.,  on  Virginia's 
effort  to  abolish  slave  trade, 
22. 

Early,  Albert,  will  emancipating 

slaves,  117. 
Early,  Joseph,  will  emancipating 

slaves,  120. 


Early,  Jubal  A.,  remarks,  in  Vir 
ginia  Convention,  1861,  on 
Lincoln's  First  Inaugural,  266. 

Edlow,  Carter  H.,  will  emancipa 
ting  slaves,  115. 

Emancipation,  problems,  social 
and  political  of,  in  Virginia, 
164;  Lincoln's  estimate  of  diffi 
culties  of,  183. 

Emancipation  in  Virginia,  diffi 
culties  attending,  159-184. 

Emancipation  Proclamations,  230. 

Emigration,  of  slaveholders  from 
Virginia,  148. 

Eppes,  Francis,  will  emancipa 
ting  slaves,  118. 

Everett,  Edward,  on  coercing  the 
seceding  States,  297. 

Ewell,  Charles,  will  emancipa 
ting  slaves,  109. 

Ewing,  Thomas,  on  adverse  in 
fluence  of  Abolitionists,  56,  57. 

"  Fanatics,"  Northern,  their  re 
actionary  influence,  175. 

Faulkner,  Charles  J.,  a  leader  of 
anti-slavery  party  in  Virginia 
Legislature,  1832,  91;  anti- 
slavery  sentiments  of,  93;  on 
injurious  effects  of  slavery  upon 
Virginia's  prosperity,  131;  allu 
sion  to  anti-slavery  sentiment 
in  Virginia,  1832,  144. 

Federal  Government,  attitude  of, 
regarding  all  questions  arising 
out  of  slavery,  185. 

"Fire  Eaters,"  Southern,  their 
reactionary  influence,  175. 

Fiske,  John,  on  Virginia's  claim 
upon  Northwest  Territory,  26; 
on  her  part  in  enacting  Ordi 
nance  of  1787,  27;  on  forces 
which  secured  enactment  of 


INDEX 


319 


clause  in  constitution,  permit 
ting  African  slave  trade,  29; 
on  anti-slavery  party  in  Vir 
ginia,  139;  declares  that  Vir 
ginia  made  first  formal  defi 
ance  to  Stamp  Act,  238;  on 
Madison's  part  in  framing  con 
stitution,  244;  his  estimate  of 
John  Marshall,  245. 

Fitzhugh,  William  Henry,  extract 
from  his  will  emancipating 
slaves,  113. 

Floyd,  John,  joint  author  with 
Mercer,  of  Act  of  1819,  in 
opposition  to  African  slave 
trade,  36. 

Forts,  Federal  jurisdiction  over, 
in  seceding  states,  275. 

Free  discussion,  lack  of,  in  Vir 
ginia,  hinders  emancipation, 
175;  causes,  which  restrained 
it,  in  Virginia,  175-184. 

Free  negroes,  number  in  Vir 
ginia  at  close  of  Revolution, 
42;  rapid  increase  of,  under 
statutes  permitting  emancipa 
tions,  42;  compelled  to  leave 
state  within  twelve  months 
after  emancipation,  43;  their 
handicap  in  slave  communities, 
163;  their  treatment  in  the 
North,  prior  to  1860,  162; 
statutes  of  various  Northern 
states  restrict  them  from  be 
coming  residents  thereof,  170- 
173;  dread  of  their  presence, 
as  residents,  on  the  part  of 
Northern  people,  172-174. 

Fugitives  from  justice,  provision 
of  constitution  referring  to, 
201;  decision  of  Supreme  Court 
construing  same,  212. 

Fugitive     slaves,     their     owners 


could  gain  nothing  by  Vir 
ginia's  secession,  213. 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  of  1850, 
among  causes  of  Civil  War,  4; 
attitude  on,  of  Republican 
Party,  190-192;  Lincoln, 
author  of  a,  191;  provision  of 
constitution  referring  to,  201; 
of  1793,  history  of  its  enact 
ment,  203;  of  1850,  history  of 
its  enactment,  206;  its  execu 
tion  impeded  by  the  Under 
ground  Railroad,  204,  205; 
declared  constitutional  by  Su 
preme  Court,  207. 

Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  his 
biographer's  estimate  of  status 
of  free  negroes,  prior  to  1860, 
163;  leader  of  Abolitionists, 
215;  disunion  sentiments  of, 
219,  223;  denounces  Webster, 
220;  his  estimate  of  Long 
fellow's  Ode  to  the  Union,  221; 
his  eulogy  of  John  Brown,  222; 
an  apologist  for  slave  insurrec 
tions,  222;  applauds  South 
Carolina's  secession,  225. 

Georgia,  requisition  of  Governor 
of,  upon  Governor  of  Maine  for 
return  of  fugitives  from  justice, 
denied,  211. 

Gilmer,  Francis  W.,  anti-slavery 
sentiments  of,  88. 

Gist,  Samuel,  colonization  of  his 
ex-slaves  in  Ohio,  66. 

Gladstone,  William  E.,  his  esti 
mate  of  the  unjustifiable  atti 
tude  of  the  North,  296. 

Goode,  John,  a  leader  of  the  Se 
cessionists  in  Virginia  Conven 
tion,  1861,  259. 

Greeley,    Horace,    declares   right 


320 


INDEX 


of    Cotton    States    to    secede, 
296. 

Green,  J.  R.,  declares  Virginia 
first  to  formally  deny  right  of 
Great  Britain  to  tax  colonies, 
238. 

Harrison,  Jesse  Burton,  his  esti 
mate  of  Virginia's  poverty  in 
1832,  induced  by  slavery,  132. 

Hart,  A.  B.,  on  the  practice  of 
buying  and  selling  slaves,  note  2, 
153;  on  number  of  slaveholders 
in  the  Southern  States,  154; 
his  estimate  of  Underground 
Railroad,  205. 

Harvie,  Lewis  E.,  a  leader  of  the 
Secessionists,  Virginia  Conven 
tion,  1861,  259. 

Hawes,  Aylette,  extract  from  will, 
emancipating  his  slaves,  111. 

Henderson,  G.  F.  R.,  on  Vir 
ginia's  loyalty,  215;  on  the  pro 
priety  of  Virginia's  secession, 
282. 

Henry,  Patrick,  anti-slavery  sen 
timents  of,  83. 

Herndon,  Thaddeus,  sends  ex- 
slaves  to  Liberia,  71. 

Herndon,  Travers,  sends  ex-slaves 
to  Liberia,  71;  extract  from  will, 
emancipating  his  slaves,  120. 

Higginson,  Thomas  Wentworth,  a 
leader  of  Abolitionists,  218. 

Hill,  A.  P.,  never  owned  a  slave, 
157. 

Hill,  Joseph,  extract  from  deed, 
emancipating  his  slaves,  105. 

Holcombe,  James  P.,  a  leader  of 
the  Secessionists,  Virginia  Con 
vention,  1861,  259. 

Howison,  R.  R.,  anti-slavery  sen 
timents  of,  98,  99;  his  estimate 


of    Virginia's    poverty,     1848, 
induced  by  slavery,  135. 

Illinois,  denies  free  negroes'  right 
to  become  residents  of,  1853,171. 

Indiana,  denies  free  negroes'  right 
to  become  residents  of,  1851, 
171. 

Jackson,  "Stonewall,"  owned  one 
slave  at  time  of  war,  157. 

Janney,  John,  extract  from  his 
speech  in  Virginia  Convention 
of  1861,  247,  258;  a  leader  of 
the  Union  men,  Virginia  Con 
vention,  1861,  259;  extract 
from  his  speech  notifying  Lee 
of  his  appointment  as  chief 
of  Virginia's  militia,  303. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  on  arraign 
ment  of  slave  trade  in  original 
draft  of  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  19;  records  reason  for 
omitting  clause  against  slave 
trade  in  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  20;  his  lament  at 
defeat  of  clause  restricting 
slavery  in  Ordinance  of  1784, 
27;  urges  Congress  to  prohibit 
importation  of  slaves,  34;  orig 
inates  idea  of  negro  coloniza 
tion,  60;  efforts,  as  President,  to 
promote  same,  60;  on  necessity 
of  negro  colonization,  75,  76; 
anti-slavery  sentiments  of,  86; 
on  political  difficulties  of  eman 
cipation  in  Virginia,  164;  on 
beneficial  results  of  diffusing 
slaves  through  the  territories, 
188. 

Jennings,  William  D.,  extract  from 
will,  emancipating  his  slaves, 
120. 


INDEX 


321 


Johnston,  Joseph  E.,  never  owned 
a  slave,  157. 

Key,  Francis  Scott,  prominent 
in  organizing  American  Colo 
nization  Society,  61. 

Lee,  Fitzhugh,  never  owned  a 
slave,  157. 

Lee,  Mary  Custis,  extract  from 
her  letter,  deploring  the  war, 
302. 

Lee,  Richard  Henry,  anti-slavery 
sentiments  of,  82. 

Lee,  Robert  E.,  anti-slavery  sen 
timents  of,  101;  owned  no 
slaves  at  time  of  war,  156; 
declares  disunion  an  aggrava 
tion  of  the  ills  of  the  South, 
227;  denies  constitutionality 
of  secession,  293;  denies  ethical 
right  of  coercion,  293;  his  sor 
row  at  disunion,  302. 

Leigh,  Benjamin  Watkins,  anti- 
slavery  sentiments  of,  89. 

Letcher,  John,  extract  from  his 
message  as  Governor  of  Vir 
ginia,  January,  1861,  248;  ex 
tract  from  reply  to  requisition 
of  Secretary  of  War  for  Vir 
ginia's  quota  of  troops,  282. 

Liberia,  circumstances  attending 
its  establishment  as  a  negro 
colony,  62,  63. 

Lightfoot,  Philip,  extract  from 
will,  emancipating  his  slaves, 
121. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  on  slavery  as 
denned  in  first  inaugural,  6 
and  15;  on  adverse  influence  of 
Abolitionists,  53-55;  on  emanci 
pation  and  colonization  of 
negroes,  77-81;  on  amalgama 


tion  of  blacks  and  whites  and 
on  their  racial  inequality,  168; 
his  reference  to  the  dread  of 
Northern  people  to  receive  free 
negroes,  173;  author  of  bill 
containing  fugitive  slave  clause, 
191;  on  fugitive  slaves  as  ex 
pressed  in  first  inaugural,  192; 
letter  to  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
regarding  interference  with 
slavery,  194;  position  as  to  pro 
posed  amendment  of  constitu 
tion  regarding  protection  of 
slavery,  1861,  196;  not  an 
Abolitionist,  198;  on  John 
Brown's  Raid,  198;  explanation 
of  his  expression  "Government 
cannot  endure  half  slave  and 
half  free,"  199;  on  the  effect  and 
character  of  his  Emancipation 
Proclamations,  231;  patriotism 
and  literary  beauty  of  first 
inaugural,  263;  regards  Union 
as  unbroken  by  secession,  263; 
his  declaration  of  policy,  264; 
reply  to  Virginia  Commis 
sioners,  April  13,  1861,  278  and 
279;  his  call  for  75,000  troops, 
April  15,  1861,  279;  requests, 
March  15,  1861,  his  cabinet 
officers'  opinions,  as  to  pro 
priety  of  provisioning  Fort 
Sumter,  285;  requests  their 
further  opinion,  March  29, 
289;  on  right  of  revolution, 
296;  on  legal  and  ethical  rights 
of  coercion,  298. 

Lunt,  George,  on  reactionary  in 
fluence  of  Abolitionists  upon 
anti-slavery  sentiment  in  Vir 
ginia,  57;  on  John  Brown's 
Raid,  180;  on  effect  of  personal 
liberty  laws,  210. 


322 


INDEX 


Madison,  James,  opposes  clause 
in  constitution,  permitting  Afri 
can  slave  trade,  31;  his  efforts 
to  impose  tariff  tax  on  im 
portation  of  slaves,  33;  mes 
sages,  as  President,  opposing 
African  slave  trade,  35;  third 
President  of  American  Colo 
nization  Society,  62;  anti-sla 
very  sentiments  of,  90;  declares 
disunion  a  menace  to  slavery, 
226;  heads  delegation  from 
Virginia  to  Annapolis  Conven 
tion,  1786,  242;  his  great  part 
in  framing  constitution,  243. 

Marshall,  John,  first  President  of 
Colonization  Society  of  Vir 
ginia,  64;  anti-slavery  senti 
ments  of,  88. 

Marshall,  Thomas,  a  leader  in 
anti-slavery  party  in  Virginia 
Legislature,  1832,  46;  anti- 
slavery  sentiments  of,  92;  his 
estimate  of  injurious  effects  of 
slavery  upon  prosperity  of 
Virginia,  131. 

Maryland,  ratifies  proposed 
amendment  to  constitution, 
1861,  protecting  slavery,  195. 

Mason,  George,  his  speech  against 
clause  in  constitution  permit 
ting  African  slave  trade,  30; 
Virginia's  statue  to  his  fame, 
31;  anti-slavery  sentiments  of, 
84. 

Maury,  Matthew  F.,  anti-slavery 
sentiments  of,  99;  never  owned 
but  one  slave,  157;  his  reference 
to  coercion  as  cause  of  Virginia's 
secession,  270;  extract  from  his 
letter  regarding  the  approach 
ing  war,  303. 

McDowell,    James,    a    leader    in 


anti-slavery  party,  in  Virginia 
Legislature,  1832,  46;  anti- 
slavery  sentiments  of,  94;  his 
estimate  of  injurious  effects  of 
slavery,  132;  on  racial  prob 
lems,  165;  declares  disunion  a 
menace  to  slavery,  226. 

McGuire,  Hunter,  his  estimate  of 
number  of  slaveholders  in  the 
Stonewall  brigade,  156. 

McM aster,  J.  B.,  his  estimate  of 
condition  of  free  negroes,  162. 

Meade,  William,  anti-slavery  sen 
timents  of,  100;  extract  from 
deed,  emancipating  a  slave, 
116;  his  estimate  of  injury  to 
Virginia's  prosperity,  induced 
by  slavery,  136. 

Mercer,  Charles  Fenton,  author 
of  law  against  African  slave 
trade,  36;  of  resolution  de 
nouncing  African  slave  trade 
as  piracy,  36;  his  remarks  in 
Congress,  supporting  resolu 
tion,  36,  37;  his  visits  to  the  Old 
World,  seeking  co-operation,  37; 
prominent  in  organizing  Amer 
ican  Colonization  Society,  61; 
anti-slavery  sentiments  of,  98. 

Mercer,  Margaret,  her  letter  to 
Gerrit  Smith  regarding  Aboli 
tionists,  178. 

Mills,  Samuel  J.,  his  visit  to 
Africa,  in  regard  to  establishing 
the  Colony  of  Liberia,  62. 

Missouri  Compromise,  its  enact 
ment  and  repeal  among  causes 
of  Civil  War,  4;  provision  of, 
restricting  rights  of  slaveholders 
in  territories,  186;  declared 
unconstitutional  by  the  Su 
preme  Court,  186. 

Monroe,  James,  message  to  Con- 


INDEX 


323 


gress  on  Right  of  Search,  37; 
anti-slavery  sentiments  of,  89. 

Montague,  Robert  L.,  a  leader  of 
the  Secessionists,  Virginia  Con 
vention,  1861,  259. 

Moorman,  Charles,  extract  from 
deed  emancipating  his  slaves, 
105. 

Morton,  Jeremiah,  a  leader  of 
the  Secessionists,  Virginia  Con 
vention,  1861,  259. 

Muschett,  Louisa,  extract  from 
will,  emancipating  her  slaves, 
123. 

Negroes,  what  should  be  their 
status  under  freedom,  164. 

Negro  trader,  the  odium  attach 
ing  to,  in  Virginia,  101, 142, 143. 

Nevada  organized  as  a  territory, 
1861,  without  prohibition  as  to 
slavery,  190. 

New  Jersey,  deprives  negroes  of 
suffrage,  1807,  170. 

New  York,  requires  higher  prop 
erty  qualification  for  suffrage 
of  negroes  than  for  whites, 
1821,  170. 

Nicolay  and  Hay,  on  reasons  for 
omitting  anti-slavery  clause  in 
Declaration  of  Independence, 
20;  on  reasons  for  Virginia's 
secession,  139. 

North  Carolina,  secedes  because 
of  President  Lincoln's  call  for 
troops,  230. 

Northern  States,  hostile  attitude 
of  certain  of,  regarding  fugi 
tive  slave  law,  201-213;  reac 
tionary  influence  of  certain  of, 
upon  sentiment  in  Virginia,  213. 

Ohio  denies  free  negroes,  right  to 


become  residents  of,  170;  rati 
fies  amendment  proposed  to 
constitution,  1861,  protecting 
slavery,  195;  Governor  of,  re 
fuses  to  honor  requisition  of 
Governor  of  Kentucky  for  re 
turn  of  fugitives  from  justice, 
212. 

Ordinances,  of  1784  and  1787  — 
Virginia's  part  in  their  enact 
ment,  26,  27. 

Ordinance  of  Secession,  adopted 
by  Virginia  Convention,  April 
17,  1861,  281;  ratified  by  the 
people  May  23,  1861,  281. 

Oregon,  denies  free  negroes'  right 
to  become  residents  of,  172. 

Parker,  Josiah,  his  efforts  to  im 
pose  tariff  tax  on  importation 
of  slaves,  33. 

Parker,  Theodore,  his  denuncia 
tions  of  Federal  judges  and 
officials,  221;  eulogizes  John 
Brown,  222;  an  apologist  of 
slave  insurrection,  223. 

Pennsylvania,  deprives  negroes  of 
suffrage,  1838,  170. 

"Personal  Liberty  Laws,"  their 
enactment  by  various  North 
ern  States,  206. 

Peyton,  Martha  E.,  extract  from 
will,  emancipating  her  slaves, 
111. 

Phillips,  Wendell,  leader  of  Abo 
litionists,  215;  disunion  senti 
ments  of,  217;  denounces  Web 
ster  and  Lincoln,  220;  eulogizes 
John  Brown,  222;  an  apologist 
of  slave  insurrection,  222;  hails 
secession  of  Southern  States, 
225;  declares  emancipation  child 
of  civil  convulsions,  228  and 


324 


INDEX 


229;  denies  the  right  of  Fed 
eral  Government  to  coerce 
Cotton  States,  298. 

Preston,  Francis,  extract  from 
deed  emancipating  a  slave,  106. 

Preston,  William  Ballard,  a  leader 
of  anti-slavery  party  in  Vir 
ginia  Legislature  of  1832,  46; 
one  of  Committee  from  Vir 
ginia  Convention,  to  wait  upon 
Lincoln,  277. 

Proclamations,  President  Lin 
coln's,  for  emancipation,  230 
and  231;  President  Lincoln's, 
calling  for  troops,  279. 

Pro-slavery,  growth  of  sentiment 
for,  in  Virginia,  49. 

Randolph,  Edmund,  opposes 
clause  in  constitution,  permit 
ting  the  African  slave  trade, 
31. 

Randolph,  George  W.,  one  of 
Committee  from  Virginia  Con 
vention  to  wait  upon  President 
Lincoln,  277. 

Randolph,  John,  of  Roanoke,  col 
onization  of  his  ex-slaves  in 
Ohio,  68;  extract  from  will, 
emancipating  his  slaves,  112; 
his  characterization  of  slavery, 
176. 

Randolph,  Richard,  Jr.,  extract 
from  will,  emancipating  his 
slaves,  107. 

Randolph,  Thomas  Jefferson,  a 
leader  of  anti-slavery  party  in 
Virginia  Legislature,  1832,  46; 
on  reactionary  influence  of 
Abolitionists  upon  anti-slavery 
sentiment  in  Virginia,  51;  anti- 
slavery  sentiments  of,  95;  re 
cords  the  growth  of  anti-slavery 


sentiment  in  Virginia  since  the 
Revolution,  144. 

Rebellion,  characteristics  of  a,  2. 

Relief  Squadron,  its  expedition 
to  Fort  Sumter,  280. 

Representation,  basis  of,  in  Vir 
ginia,  145,  175. 

Republic,  ideals  of,  246. 

Republican  Party,  attitude  of, 
regarding  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories,  as  declared  in  their 
platform,  186,  189;  abandons 
in  Congress,  1861,  their  posi 
tion,  189;  position  of,  regarding 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  190,  191; 
position  of,  regarding  slavery 
in  Southern  States,  194-197. 

Revolution,  characteristics  of  a,  2. 

Rhodes,  James  Ford,  estimate  of 
Lee  and  the  motives  which 
impelled  him  to  fight  with  Vir 
ginia,  142;  on  Virginia's  effort 
to  save  the  Union,  248;  his  esti 
mate  of  significance  of  Peace 
Conference,  251;  on  result  of 
Virginia  election,  February, 
1861,  257;  his  estimate  of  anti- 
coercion  sentiment  in  Virginia 
and  other  Border  States,  290. 

Rhode  Island,  alone  repeals 
"personal  liberty  law,"  210. 

Right  of  Revolution,  held  by  Vir 
ginia  people,  291;  as  defined 
by  Jefferson  Davis,  292;  as 
defined  by  Abraham  Lincoln, 
296. 

Rives,  William  C.,  anti-slavery 
sentiment  of,  97,  98;  on  racial 
problem,  166;  a  delegate  from 
Virginia  to  Peace  Conference, 
250;  extract  from  his  speech  in 
Peace  Conference,  252. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  on  reaction- 


INDEX 


325 


ary  influence  of  Abolitionists, 
upon  anti-slavery  sentiment  in 
Virginia,  58;  estimate  of  Rob 
ert  E.  Lee  and  his  soldiers,  141. 

Ruffner,  Henry,  on  reactionary 
influence  of  Abolitionists  upon 
anti-slavery  sentiments  in  Vir 
ginia,  52;  anti-slavery  senti 
ments  of,  99;  his  estimate  of 
injurious  effect  of  slavery  upon 
Virginia's  prosperity,  133. 

Russell,  W.  H.,  his  opinion  as  to 
lack  of  settled  policy  in  Fed- 
aral  administration,  March, 
1861,  278. 

Sanders,  Sampson,  colonization 
of  his  ex-slaves  in  Michigan,  69; 
extract  from  will,  emancipa 
ting  his  slaves,  119. 

Schouler,  James,  on  disunion  sen 
timents  of  Abolitionist  leaders, 
218. 

Secession,  advocates  of,  in  Vir 
ginia,  10;  status  of  controversy 
regarding  slavery  at  time  of 
Virginia's,  185-200;  no  cure  for 
Virginia's  grievances  against 
Abolitionists,  215;  Virginia's 
would  menace  slavery,  227, 
228;  contests  in  Virginia's  Con 
vention,  for  and  against,  265- 
274;  Virginia's  Convention  de 
feats,  272;  President  Lincoln's 
call  for  troops  impels  Virginia 
to,  281;  Robert  E.  Lee  denies 
constitutional  right  of,  293; 
William  C.  Rives  condemns,  of 
States,  293;  how  Virginia  re 
garded,  301. 

Seddon,  James  A.,  a  delegate 
from  Virginia  to  Peace  Con 
ference,  250. 


Seward,  William  H.,  on  negro 
problem,  167;  on  election  in 
Virginia,  1861,  257;  his  opinion 
as  to  lack  of  settled  policy  in 
Federal  administration,  April, 
1861,  278;  his  replies  as  Secre 
tary  of  State  to  President  Lin 
coln's  request  for  opinions  as 
to  provisioning  Fort  Sumter, 
285-289;  his  official  communi 
cation  to  American  minister  to 
Great  Britain,  April,  1861,  de 
nning  position  of  the  Presi 
dent,  298. 

Seys,  Rev.  John,  his  account  of 
departure  of  Herndon's  slaves 
for  Liberia,  71-73. 

Sherman,  William  T.,  on  the 
negro  problem,  167. 

Sheffey,  James  W.,  extract  from 
speech  in  Virginia  Convention, 
1861,  on  coercion,  265. 

Slaughter,  Rev.  Philip,  his  esti 
mate  of  anti-slavery  sentiment 
in  Virginia,  1831,  43  and  144. 

Slaves,  their  first  importation,  16; 
rate  of  their  importation,  16; 
their  number  in  Virginia,  1776, 
24;  efforts  of  Virginians  in  First 
Congress  to  impose  tariff  tax  on 
importation  of,  33;  affection  of, 
for  masters,  70-73;  transferred 
from  Virginia  to  other  states, 
147;  sale  of,  by  Virginia  owners 
and  traders,  148;  practice  of 
buying  and  selling,  reviewed  by 
William  Henry  Smith,  149; 
injury  to  certain  classes  of,  by 
untimely  emancipation,  161. 

Slavery,  foremost  among  the 
causes  of  the  Civil  War,  3; 
Virginia's  colonial  record  re 
garding,  15-24;  earliest  intro- 


326 


INDEX 


duction  of,  1619,  16;  opposition 
to,  of  Colonel  William  Byrd, 
1736,  16,  note  4;  statutes  re 
straining  increase  of,  defeated 
by  King  George,  18;  anti- 
slavery  position  of  Virginia 
declared,  18-24;  its  exclusion 
from  the  Northwest  Territory, 
26-28;  statutes  ameliorating 
conditions  of,  41-44;  growth 
and  culmination  of  sentiment 
opposing,  43,  44;  movement 
in  General  Assembly,  1832,  to 
abolish,  45-48;  growth  in  senti 
ment  favoring,  49;  patriarchal 
character  of,  101;  injurious 
effects  of,  upon  prosperity 
of  Virginia,  128-137;  unprofit 
able  character  of,  in  Virginia, 
128;  difficulties  of  abolishing, 
159-184;  causes  militating 
against  free  discussion  of,  in 
Virginia,  175-182;  status  of 
controversy  regarding,  1860, 
185-192;  promises  of  President 
Lincoln  to  respect  the  institu 
tion  of,  195,  196;  its  integrity 
in  Southern  States  pledged  by 
Republican  platform,  1861,  193; 
Virginia's  secession  not  im 
pelled  by  fear  of  legislation 
against,  194;  amendment  to 
constitution  proposed  by  Con 
gress,  safeguarding  the  institu 
tion  of,  195;  resolutions  of  Con 
gress,  pledging  protection  to, 
1861,  194;  the  most  potent 
factor  in  precipitating  the  war, 
232;  an  unconstitutional  assault 
upon,  would  have  justified 
Virginia's  resistance,  233;  Vir 
ginia's  attitude  towards,  in  ter 
ritories,  273. 


Slaveholders,  legal  rights  of,  em 
barrass  emancipation,  160. 

Smith,  Caleb  B.,  his  replies  as 
Secretary  of  Interior,  to  Presi 
dent  Lincoln's  request  for  opin 
ions  as  to  provisioning  Fort 
Sumter.  286,  289. 

Smith,  John,  extract  from  will, 
emancipating  his  slaves,  110. 

Smith,  William,  extract  from 
will,  emancipating  his  slaves, 
122. 

Smith,  William  Henry,  on  reac 
tionary  influence  of  Abolition 
ists  upon  anti-slavery  senti 
ment  in  Virginia,  58;  his  review 
of  the  practice  of  buying  and 
selling  slaves,  149. 

Southampton  County,  servile  in 
surrection  in,  45. 

Stanton,  Edwin  M.,  his  opinion 
as  to  lack  of  settled  policy  in 
Federal  administration,  March, 
1861,  277. 

State  Sovereignty,  the  theory  of, 
290. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  his  esti 
mate  of  the  significance  of  the 
Relief  Squadron's  expedition 
to  Fort  Sumter,  281. 

Stiles,  Robert,  his  estimate  of 
the  number  of  slaveholders 
among  the  members  of  Rich 
mond  Howitzers,  155. 

Stuart,  Alexander  H.  H.,  a  leader 
of  the  Union  men,  Virginia 
Convention,  1861,  259;  one  of 
committee  from  Virginia  Con 
vention  to  wait  upon  President 
Lincoln,  277. 

Stuart,  J.  E.  B.,  owned  no  slaves 
at  time  of  war,  157. 

Suffrage,  white  manhood,  first  es- 


INDEX 


327 


tablished  in  Virginia  by  consti 
tution  of,  1850-1851,  146. 

Summers,  George  W.,  declares 
disunion  a  menace  to  slavery, 
227;  a  delegate  from  Virginia 
to  Peace  Conference,  250;  ex 
tract  from  his  speech  at  same, 
253;  a  leader  of  the  Union  men, 
Virginia  Convention,  1861,  259; 
extract  from  speech  on  coer 
cion,  Virginia  Convention,  1861, 
267;  extract  from  letter  on 
effect  of  suggested  evacuation 
of  Fort  Sumter,  271. 

Sumter,  Fort,  strategic  impor 
tance  of  its  occupancy  by  Fed 
eral  troops,  276. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  urges  Congress 
to  suppress  African  slave  trade, 
39. 

Tennessee,  secedes  because  of 
President  Lincoln's  call  for 
troops,  230. 

Territories,  right  of  slaveholders 
in,  a  serious  problem,  186. 

Thorn,  Cameron  E.,  his  account 
of  attempt  of  John  Thorn  to 
colonize  his  ex-slaves,  73,  74. 

Tinsley,  Robert,  extract  from  will, 
emancipating  his  slaves,  123. 

Tocqueville,  Alexis  de,  on  negro 
problem  in  America,  166;  de 
clares  Federal  Government, 
founded  on  consent  of  states, 
cannot  be  maintained  by  force, 
294. 

Tucker,  George,  his  estimate  of 
reactionary  influence  of  Abo 
litionists  upon  anti-slavery  sen 
timent  in  Virginia,  51,  52. 

Tucker,  St.  George,  anti-slavery 
sentiments  of,  85;  his  influence 


in  forming  anti-slavery  senti 
ments  of  Thomas  H.  Benton, 
85,  note  3. 

Turner,  Nat,  leads  slave  insurrec 
tion,  1831,  45. 

Tyler,  Sr.,  John,  anti-slavery  sen 
timents  of,  84. 

Tyler,  John,  urges  Congress  to 
enact  laws  suppressing  African 
slave  trade,  38;  anti-slavery 
sentiments  of,  87;  a  commis 
sioner  from  Virginia  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States, 
1861,  250;  a  delegate  from  Vir 
ginia  to  the  Peace  Conference, 
1861,  250;  an  extract  from  his 
speech,  as  President  of  the 
Peace  Conference,  252. 

"Underground  Railroad,"  The, 
its  origin  and  the  character  of 
its  operations,  204,  205. 

Virginia,  diversity  of  sentiment 
in,  10;  attitude  of  dominant  ele 
ment  in,  regarding  slavery  and 
secession,  10,  11;  her  opposition 
to  coercion  and  grounds  there 
for,  11;  right  of  self-government, 
basis  of  her  position,  12;  her  Co 
lonial  record  regarding  slavery, 
15-24;  her  efforts  to  restrain 
increase  of  slavery  defeated  by 
Great  Britain,  17,  18;  petition 
of  her  House  of  Burgesses,  1772, 
to  King  George,  against  African 
slave  trade,  18;  her  opposition 
to  African  slave  trade  declared, 
by  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  the  original 
Declaration  of  independence, 
19;  her  opposition  to  African 
slave  trade  voiced  in  county 
meetings,  21;  resolutions  of  her 


328 


INDEX 


Colonial  Convention  against 
importation  of  slaves,  21;  her 
anti-slavery  position  defined, 
1774,  in  Continental  Congress, 
21,  22;  her  efforts  to  enforce  the 
agreements  for  the  non-impor 
tation  of  slaves,  22;  her  Consti 
tution  and  Bill  of  Rights,  1776, 
antagonistic  to  slavery,  22,  23; 
Mr.  Bancroft's  estimate  of  her 
Bill  of  Rights,  23;  number  of 
slaves  in,  at  outbreak  of  the 
Revolution,  24;  her  statute 
abolishing  African  slave  trade, 
1778,  25;  her  cession  of  North 
west  Territory  to  Federal  Gov 
ernment,  26,  28;  her  part  in 
adopting  Ordinance  of  1787,  27, 
28;  Mr.  Bancroft's  estimate  of, 
27;  her  General  Assembly  con 
firms  Deed  and  Ordinance,  1789, 
28;  her  opposition  to  clause  of 
constitution  permitting  foreign 
slave  trade,  29,  31;  her  con 
tinued  efforts  to  restrain  Afri 
can  slave  trade,  33-40;  her 
statutes  —  1782,  —  permitting 
slave  holders  to  emancipate  their 
slaves,  41;  of  1788  — punish 
ment  with  death  for  enslave 
ment  of  child  of  free  blacks, 
41;  of  1795  —  according  slaves 
process  of  law  without  costs 
in  proceedings  affecting  their 
freedom,  42;  of  1803  —  requir 
ing  county  authorities  to  keep 
registers,  showing  negroes  en 
titled  to  liberty,  42;  number 
of  her  free  negroes,  in  1810,  42; 
her  Act  of  1806,  requiring 
emancipated  slaves  to  leave 
state,  42;  growth  and  culmina 
tion,  in  1831,  of  her  anti-slavery 


sentiments,  43;  reactionary  ef 
fect,  upon  her  anti-slavery 
sentiment  of  Nat  Turner  insur 
rection,  the  Abolitionists  and  the 
failure  of  her  General  Assembly, 
1832,  to  abolish  slavery  or  to 
remove  free  negroes,  43,  44; 
movement  in  her  General  As 
sembly,  1832  —  to  abolish  sla 
very,  45-48;  her  growth  in 
pro-slavery  sentiment,  48-56; 
reactionary  influence  of  Aboli 
tionists  upon  her  anti-slavery 
sentiment,  51-59;  her  efforts  in 
aid  of  negro  colonization,  60-65; 
her  attitude  towards  emancipa 
tion,  75;  her  record  regarding 
slavery,  as  reviewed  by  St. 
George  Tucker,  85;  public  opin 
ion  in,  ameliorates  hardships  of 
slavery,  101 ;  instances  of  eman 
cipations  in,  104;  small  num 
ber  of  slaveholders  in,  125; 
injurious  effects  of  slavery  upon, 
128-138;  her  attitude  towards 
custom  of  buying  and  selling 
slaves,  139-153;  constitutional 
requirements  in,  regarding 
voting  and  apportionment  of 
representation,  145,  146;  colo 
nists  from,  to  Liberia,  153; 
small  number  of  slaveholders, 
among  her  soldiers,  154-158; 
causes  militating  against  free 
discussion  of  slavery  in,  175- 
184;  her  electoral  vote  in  1860, 
cast  for  Union  candidates,  183, 
her  secession  not  impelled  by 
fear  of  adverse  slavery  legisla 
tion,  194;  effect  of  "personal 
liberty  laws"  and  "Under 
ground  Railroad"  upon  people 
of,  204,  205;  requisition  of 


INDEX 


329 


Governor  of,  upon  Governor  of 
New  York  for  fugitive  from 
justice  denied,  211;  her  people 
appreciated  the  danger  to  sla 
very  resulting  from  secession, 
226-228;  attitude  of  her  people 
unchanged  by  Emancipation 
Proclamations,  231,  232;  her 
part  in  the  Revolution,  237- 
241;  her  part  in  making  the 
Union,  242-247;  her  efforts  to 
maintain  peace  and  preserve 
the  Union,  248;  her  General 
Assembly  calls  Peace  Confer 
ence  at  Washington,  February, 
1861,  250;  her  people  declare 
for  Union,  February  4,  1861, 
255;  result  of  election  in,  for 
delegates  to  State  Convention, 
256;  her  action  on  secession 
determined  by  President  Lin 
coln's  call  for  troops,  260;  her 
position  regarding  coercion  of 
Cotton  States,  264,  265;  effect 
of  Lincoln's  First  Inaugural 
upon  members  of  her  Con 
vention,  264;  contests  in  her 
Convention  for  and  against 
secession,  269-275;  report  of 
Committee  on  Federal  Rela 
tions,  in  her  Convention,  1861, 
fairly  expressive  of  sentiments 
of  majority  of  her  people,  271- 
275;  her  Convention  defeats 
motion  to  secede  April  4,  1861, 
272;  her  attitude  regarding 
slavery  in  territories,  273;  pro 
poses  to  re-enact  inhibition  as 
to  slavery  north  of  36  degrees 
30  minutes  by  Constitutional 
Amendment,  273;  call  of  her 
Convention  upon  President  Lin 
coln,  for  definite  declaration 


regarding  coercion  of  Cotton 
States,  277;  reply  of  President 
Lincoln  to  her  Convention,  278; 
President  Lincoln's  call  for 
troops  impels  her  to  secede 
(April  17,  1861),  280,  281;  re 
sponse  of  her  Governor  to  call 
for  troops,  282;  sentiments  of 
her  people  regarding  coercion, 
290-294;  her  people  threatened 
with  war,  still  adhere  to  their 
position  on  State  Sovereignty, 
299;  how  her  people  regarded 
secession,  299;  predominant 
characteristics  of  her  people, 
303;  her  people's  stand  pre 
determined,  304. 

War  —  Civil,  characteristics  of  a,  1. 

Ward,  Sr.,  John,  extract  from  will, 
emancipating  his  slaves,  110. 

Ward,  John,  colonization  of  his 
ex-slaves  in  Ohio,  68. 

Warwick,  John,  colonization  of 
his  ex-slaves  in  Ohio,  69;  ex 
tract  from  will,  emancipating 
his  slaves,  118. 

Washington,  Bushrod,  First  Pres 
ident  of  American  Coloniza 
tion  Society,  61. 

Washington,  George,  his  anti- 
slavery  sentiments,  83;  ex 
tract  from  will,  emancipating 
his  slaves,  108;  speech  as  Pres 
ident  of  Philadelphia  Conven 
tion,  1787,  244. 

Webb,  Thacker  V.,  extract  from 
will,  emancipating  his  slaves, 
116. 

Webster,  Daniel,  on  reactionary 
effect  of  Abolitionists  upon 
anti-slavery  sentiment  in  Vir 
ginia,  55. 


330 


INDEX 


Welles,  Gideon  E.,  his  replies,  as 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  to 
President  Lincoln's  request  for 
opinions  as  to  provisioning 
Fort  Sumter,  286. 

Wickham,  Williams  C.,  a  leader 
of  Union  men,  Virginia  Con 
vention,  1861,  259. 

Williams,  George  W.,  views  of, 
regarding  first  importation  of 
slaves,  16;  on  forces  which 
secured  enactment  of  clause  in 
constitution,  permitting  Afri 
can  slave  trade,  30. 

Wilson,  Henry,  estimate  of  debate 
in  Virginia  Legislature,  1832, 


regarding  abolition  of  slavery, 
46;  on  the  effects  of  Virginia's 
action  regarding  secession,  269. 

Wisconsin,  Supreme  Court  of, 
releases  prisoner  convicted  in 
Federal  Court,  207;  resolutions 
adopted  by  General  Assembly  of 
1859  asserting  sovereignty  of 
state,  207. 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  writes  as  Consul, 
from  Rio  Janeiro,  against  Afri 
can  slave  trade,  39;  depicts 
Virginia's  poverty,  1856,  138. 

Wolseley,  Viscount  Lord,  on  cause 
for  which  Lee  fought,  12;  esti 
mate  of  Robert  E.  Lee,  141. 


VIRGINIA'S    ATTITUDE 

TOWARD    SLAVERY    AND    SECESSION 

By  BEVERLET  B.  MUNFORD  Large  Crown,  8vo,  Cloth 

OPINIONS   OF   THE   PRESS 

The  Argonaut,  San  Francisco:  — 

"This  book  is  a  noteworthy  addition  to  the  literature  concerning 
the  Civil  War.  .  .  .  However  profound  may  be  a  disagree 
ment  with  the  author's  main  contentions  there  will  be  no  ques 
tion  of  the  conscientious  skill  with  which  he  has  approached 
his  task,  or  the  historical  value  of  the  facts  that  he  has  arrayed." 

The  Baltimore  Sun:  — 

44  This  book  will  serve  a  most  useful  purpose.  Its  author  is  a  trained 
and  accomplished  lawyer,  who  knows  how  to  support  his  asser 
tions  by  evidence  and  how  to  present  his  facts.  The  questions 
which  are  discussed  in  this  book  have  perhaps  never  before  been 
discussed  more  fairly  and  dispassionately." 

The   Boston    Transcript:  — 

"Although  the  time  is  long  past  when  it  was  necessary  to  hold  a 
brief  for  the  attitude  of  any  State  or  section  on  the  slave  ques 
tion,  secession  or  reconstruction,  Mr.  Munford's  book  on  'Vir 
ginia's  Attitude  Toward  Slavery  and  Secession '  is  interesting 
aud  illuminating.  .  .  .  The  whole  sectional  question  of  the  fifties 
and  sixties  is  now  generally  understood  by  all  tolerant  and 
liberal  men  to  have  been  the  inevitable  and  logical  sequence 
of  conditions  for  which  both  sections  were  alike  at  fault. 

"Any  man  to  whom  American  history  is  more  than  a  grammar 
school  exercise  is  aware  that  Virginia  had  different  motives 
and  ideals  during  those  trying  times  than  either  her  New  Eng 
land  sisters  or  the  Cotton  States  along  the  Gulf,  and  it  is  those 
motives  and  ideals  that  Mr.  Munford  discusses  in  his  treatise. 
.  .  .  All  this  is  accepted  history,  but  Mr.  Munford  brings  to  it 
a  wealth  of  detail  which  gives  the  book  a  special  value." 

The  Brooklyn  Eagle:  — 

"The  volume  is  a  contribution  of  historical  value  and  of  high 
interest  to  those  who  would  think  correctly  and  speak  justly  on 
Virginia's  relation  to  the  war  between  the  N orth  and  South. 

1 


ii  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS— Continued 

"The  author  has  done  to  all  the  States  a  service  in  seeking  to  do 
justice  to  his  own.  His  style  is  judicial  without  passion,  educa 
tional  and  enlightening  without  reproach.  ...  As  strongly 
as  he  vindicates  Virginia,  he  sets  forth  the  contrary  view  of  the 
North  and  West,  and  he  realizes  the  Providence  as  well  as  the 
finality  of  the  result.  The  North  is  understood  when  Virginia 
is,  for  both  are  understood  when  both  are  explained." 

The  Christian  Register,  Boston:  — 

"Many  subjects  are  treated  in  this  carefully  prepared  volume, 
which  deserves  the  attention  of  all  candid  men  who  study 
this  mighty  episode  in  the  national  life.  The  book  is  written 
with  positive  conviction  and  with  a  strong  desire  to  vindicate 
Virginia  from  the  judgments  passed  upon  her  by  a  portion 
of  the  Northern  public,  but  it  is  written  without  passion  or 
base  appeals  to  prejudice." 

The  Examiner,  New  York: — 

"  Mr.  Munford's  book  is  sincerely  written.  It  is  illuminating  on 
many  points,  is  written  in  a  surprisingly  judicial  and  concilia 
tory  spirit,  and  has  value  as  a  genuine  contribution  to  the  litera 
ture  of  an  unusually  vexed  and  complicated  period  of  human 
divisiveness  on  great  and  fundamental  questions  of  democratic 
government." 

The  Indianapolis  News:  — 

' '  The  discussion  involves  the  social  and  political  difficulties  of  race 
adjustment  which  to  day  confront  the  American  people.  Alto 
gether  it  is  a  valuable  book,  presenting  a  clear  and  impartial 
view  of  this  much  discussed  question,  and  it  is  a  most  interest 
ing  and  readable  book,  since  in  the  hearts  of  most  of  us,  North 
and  South  alike,  there  will  always  remain  a  fondness  for  the 
name  and  the  welfare  of  Virginia." 

The  Interior,  Chicago:  — 

"Mr.  Munford's  book  is  prepared  with  most  commendable  care, 
and  its  spirit  of  fairness  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired." 

The  Landmark,  Norfolk:  — 

"Mr.  Munford  is  known  all  over  Virginia  and  the  South  as  one 
of  the  leading  members  of  the  Richmond  Bar,  a  scholarly  man 
and  a  profound  thinker.  This  book  is  a  monument  to  his  intellect 
and  his  patriotism^ and  will  long  stand  as  historical  authority 
on  a  subject  which  it  illuminates  more  clearly  than  it  has  ever 
been  illuminated  before." 

Literary  Digest,  New  York:  — 

"New  light  is  cast  upon  a  most  perplexing  point  in  our  history, 
by  this  carefully  written  and  scholarly  work." 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS— Continued  iii 

The  Nation:  — 

"Virginia's  Attitude  Toward  Slavery  and  Secession,'  by  Beverley 
B.  Munford,  is  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  secession  of  Vir 
ginia  was  due,  not  to  devotion  to  slavery  and  a  desire  to  per 
petuate  it,  and  least  of  all  to  hostility  to  the  Union,  but  to  the 
adoption  by  the  Federal  Government  of  a  policy  of  coercion. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Munford's  temper  is  so  admirable,  and  his  method 
so  direct,  as  to  make  adverse  criticism  seem  ungracious.  We 
cannot  but  think,  however,  that  he  has  somewhat  confused  the 
cause  of  secession  with  its  occasion." 

The  News-Leader,  Richmond:  — 

"One  of  the  most  valuable  and  informing  books  ever  published  in 
this  country  is  'Virginia's  Attitude  Toward  Slavery  and  Seces 
sion,'  by  Beverley  B.  Munford.  ...  It  is  a  great  work,  on  a  great 
subject.  It  is  history  gathered  with  the  careful  accuracy  of  the 
trained  lawyer,  presented  with  the  dispassionate  clearness  of 
a  judicial  mind  and  with  the  force  of  the  finished  and  capable 
writer.  It  must  live  because  it  has  all  the  elements  of  literary 
life  —  truth,  usefulness  and  information,  strongly  told  and  so 
arranged  as  to  hold  the  interest  of  the  reader." 

The  New  York  Sun:  — 

"Mr.  Munford  has  studied  his  subject  carefully:  he  has  used  many 
unpublished  sources,  he  puts  his  statements  clearly  and  forcibly, 
and  settles  one  disputed  matter  in  history  authoritatively. 
There  will  be  no  need  of  going  over  the  subject  again  soon, 
save  for  the  purpose  of  writing  academic  dissertations." 

The  New  York  Times:  — 

"'Virginia's  Attitude  Toward  Slavery  and  Secession'  is  a  candid 
and  temperate  examination  of  all  the  events  and  currents  of 
sentiment  and  opinion  leading  up  to  the  war,  resulting  in  the 
conclusion  that  the  secession  of  the  State  was  in  reality  due 
to  the  decision  of  the  Federal  Government  to  coerce  the  already 
seceded  States.  .  .  .  The  argument  in  this  sense  is  presented  by 
the  author  with  entire  fairness,  with  great  care  for  accuracy, 
with  marked  ability,  lucidly  and  in  logical  order." 

The  North  American  Review:  — 

"  Mr.  Munford's  volume  possesses  far  more  than  a  local  and  sec 
tional  importance,  for  its  treatment  of  its  general  thesis  is  so 
comprehensive  in  substance  and  so  broadly  patriotic  in  spirit  — 
it  deals  with  questions  that  reach  over  so  constantly  into  the 
domain  of  national  events  and  influences,  that,  from  the  start 
to  finish,  the  volume  appeals  irresistibly  to  every  citizen  of  the 
Union  who  is  interested  in  the  most  momentous  era  of  our 
National  history  since  the  close  of  the  Revolution." 


iv  GENERAL  COMMENT 

The  Outlook,  New  York:  — 

"One  of  the  greatest  obstacles  to  social  progress  in  America  is 
the  spirit  of  sectionalism.  People  divided  by  past  issues  and 
memories  of  past  bitterness  cannot  deal  as  they  should  with 
the  vital  questions  of  the  present.  Everything,  therefore,  that 
tends  to  dissipate  such  past  misunderstanding  has  a  very  prac 
tical  value.  For  this  reason  such  a  book  as  'Virginia's  Attitude 
Toward  Slavery  and  Secession,'  by  Beverley  B.  Munford,is  some 
thing  more  than  a  contribution  to  history.  .  .  .  We  wish  that 
this  book  might  have  a  large  circulation,  especially  in  the  North." 

The  Scotsman,  Glasgow:  — 

"Mr.  Munford's  interesting  historical  treatise  makes  for  impar 
tiality  by  combating  the  impression  that  the  secession  of  the 
Cotton  States,  and  of  Virginia  in  particular,  was  due  to  no  other 
causes  than  hostility  to  the  Union  and  a  desire  to  maintain  and 
extend  the  institution  of  slavery.  .  .  .  The  book  should  be  read 
with  advantage  by  students  of  the  origin  of  the  war." 

The  Southern  Churchman :  — 

"Far  and  away  the  saddest  and  most  disastrous  episode  in  the  entire 
history  of  this  land  was  our  awful  War  of  Secession.  ...  If 
men  are  to  forget  and  forgive  that  awful  period,  it  must  be 
because  they  mentally  understand  and  appreciate  the  motives 
which  moved  men  in  those  days. 

"  The  most  valuable  contribution  that  has  ever  been  made  towards 
the  understanding  of  an  important  phase  —  indeed,  the  most  im 
portant  phase  of  that  struggle,  has  just  been  made  by  the 
Hon.  Beverley  B.  Munford  in  his  work,  'Virginia's  Attitude 
Toward  Slavery  and  Secession.'" 


GENERAL   COMMENT 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS,  President  of  the  Massachusetts  His 
torical  Society:  — 

"An  account,  given  by  a  Virginian,  of  Virginia  as  a  factor  in  the 
problem  both  before  it  took  shape,  when  it  took  shape,  and  in 
the  final  outcome  of  the  resulting  'irrepressible  conflict,'  written 
in  a  spirit  at  once  judicial  and  historical,  ought  to  reach  a  large 
number  of  readers  in  the  North.  Should  it  do  so,  it  will  go 
far  to  modify  many  mistaken  and  erroneous  impressions  there 
still  existing  as  to  the  attitude  and  the  influence  exercised  by 
Virginia  during  a  very  memorable  period  and  at  a  momentous 
historical  crisis,  the  true  inwardness  and  ultimate  significance 
of  which  we  are  only  now  beginning  to  fathom  and  forecast. 
Read  from  this  point  of  view,  this  work  is  a  valuable  addition 
to  the  vast  mass  of  material  connected  with  the  W"ar  °f  Secession 
and  the  Struggle  for  Nationality,  which  the  historian  of  the 
future  must  work  over  and  assimilate." 


GENERAL  COMMENT— Continued  V 

EDWIN  A.  ALDERMAN,  President  of  the  University  of  Virginia:  — 
"The  war  between  the  States  is  the  event  of  greatest  magnitude 
in  our  history.  The  desire  to  understand  the  causes  that  brought 
it  about  haunts  every  just  mind  in  both  sections  of  the  reunited 
country.  In  my  judgment,  no  book  has  been  written  in  this 
generation  which  so  clearly  and  justly  analyzes  the  situation, 
and  reveals  the  motives  of,  at  least,  one  great  factor  in  the 
problem.  ..." 

' '  Every  patriotic  American  ought  to  read  this  sincere  book  for  the 
breadth  of  view  it  would  give  his  mind,  for  the  sympathy  it 
would  infuse  into  his  spirit,  and  for  the  enlightenment  it  would 
bring  to  his  understanding  of  a  sad  and  baffling  period  in  our 
national  history.  ..." 

JOHN  GRAHAM  BROOKS,  of  Massachusetts,  Author  of  "The  Social 
Unrest"  and  "As  Others  See  Us":  — 

"No  contribution  yet  offered  on  this  thorny  subject  should  be  more 
welcome  to  every  good  American  than  this  dispassionate  study 
by  Mr.  Beverley  B.  Munford.  .  .  . 

"The  temper,  spirit  and  sobriety  of  the  author  are  admirable. 
If  certain  opinions  as  to  the  real  causes  of  the  Civil  War  call 
out  dissent,  very  few  honest  readers  in  the  North  will  lay  aside 
the  volume  without  heightened  respect  for  his  country  as  a 
whole,  and  a  feeling  of  gratitude  to  the  author. 

"Every  chapter  of  the  book  makes  for  that  larger  understanding 
on  which  sectional  and  national  good  will  depend." 

PHILIP  ALEXANDER  BRUCE,  in  the  Virginia  Historical  Magazine:  — 
"It  is  a  sad  but  heroic  story  which  Mr.  Munford  has  told  so  power 
fully.  Indeed,  there  is  nothing  of  its  kind  in  all  history  more 
moving.  .  .  .  Virginia  of  the  past  —  home  though  it  was  of 
statesmen  and  soldiers,  of  chivalrous  men  and  lovely  women 
—  rises  before  us  in  these  pages  like  another  struggling  Laocoon 
entangled  in  the  folds  of  an  even  deadlier  serpent.  The  tragedy 
of  the  situation  needed  no  unsuccessful  appeal  to  arms  to  in 
tensify  its  sadness  and  its  sombreness." 

ALBERT  BUSHNELL  HART,  Professor  of  History  in  Harvard  Uni 
versity:  — 

"The  book  is  a  distinct  contribution  to  the  history  of  the  slavery 
contest  and  the  Civil  War.  Ignoring  conventionalities  and 
prejudices  with  which  the  subject  is  usually  surrounded,  the 
book  goes  straight  at  the  fundamental  question  of  the  real 
attitude  of  mind  of  the  thinking  people  in  Virginia  toward 
those  controversies.  It  brings  to  light  many  facts  —  some 
of  them  drawn  from  court  records,  newspapers  and  other  obscure 
sources  —  many  of  which  have  not  found  their  way  into  ordinary 
histories,  and  which  cannot  fail  to  modify  some  historical  con 
clusions.  .  .  .  Without  following  the  findings  in  every  respect,  I 
can  unhesitatingly  approve  the  method,  the  spirit  and  the 
serviceability  of  this  work.  It  puts  the  relation  of  Virginia  to 
the  Union  in  a  new  light." 


vi  GENERAL  COMMENT— Continued 

W.  GORDON  McCABE  in  the  Saturday  Review,  London:  — 
"  Far  removed  from  the  tense  passion  of  those  '  old,  unhappy,  far 
off  things,'  this  Virginian  of  a  later  generation,  possessed  of  a 
trained  legal  mind  that  enables  him  to  distinguish  between  real 
evidence  and  mere  dogmatic  assertion,  essays,  in  the  true  spirit 
of  historical  investigation,  to  vindicate  by  a  temperate  recital  of 
established  facts  Virginia's  real  attitude  toward  slavery,  and  to 
confirm  by  the  unimpeachable  testimony  of  '  the  record '  what 
he  holds  to  have  been  the  compelling  motive  that  drove  her, 
however  reluctant,  to  sever  the  ties  which  bound  her  to  the 
Union." 

S.  C.  MITCHELL,  President  of  the  University  of  South  Carolina:  — 
"  It  is  a  book  of  rare  value  historically,  treating  in  a  masterly  way 
the  most  critical  period  in  the  annals  of  the  ancient  common 
wealth  of  Virginia.  The  style  is  clear  and  forceful;  patient 
research  characterizes  every  phase  of  the  discussion ;  the  analy 
sis  of  the  subject  is  remarkably  fine  and  suggestive,  and  the 
spirit  of  fairness  which  pervades  the  work  will  commend  it  to 
all  students  of  American  history." 

EDWARD  M.  SHEPARD,  of  New  York,  Lawyer  and  Publicist:  — 
"It  sets  before  us  the  very  best  of  American  statesmanship,  its 
difficulties,  its  methods,  its  genius,  its  humanity  —  and,  besides, 
the  work  well  reproduces  its  sober  and  restrained  eloquence. 
To  nearly  all  Americans  who,  to  any  extent,  are  students  in 
history  and  politics,  it  will  bring  into  surprising  illumination 
the  real  genesis  of  Virginia's  share  in  the  Civil  War;  and,  very 
certainly,  it  will  add  to  the  honor  in  which  that  great  common 
wealth  is  held. 

"The  high-minded  impartiality  with  which  Mr.  Munford  has  con 
ducted  his  thorough  and  scholarly  investigations,  and  the  mellow 
wisdom  of  it  all,  will  compel  many  of  us  —  and  especially  those, 
of  whom  I  am  one  —  who  are  strongly  imbued  with  anti-slavery 
or  even  'abolition'  predilections,  to  review,  and  probably  to 
recast,  our  notions  of  slavery  and  the  origin  of  the  Civil  War." 

WILLIAM  F.  SLOCUM,  President  of  Colorado  College:  — 
"The  author  has  placed  not  only  his  own  State,  but  the  whole 
country,  under  deep  and  lasting  obligation  for  this  distinct 
contribution  to  American  history.  No  future  just  record  of 
the  Civil  War  can  now  be  written  without  recognition  of  that 
which  Mr.  Munford  has  so  ably  and  clearly  brought  to  public 
notice  in  this  volume." 

WOODROW  WILSON,  President  of  Princeton  University:  — 
"I  think  the  author  has  done  not  only  Virginia,  but  the  whole 
country,  a  real  service  in  writing  it.  It  ought  to  remove  many 
misapprehensions  and  throw  a  new  light  upon  a  very  difficult 
and  perplexing  period  of  our  history.  The  book  is  so  thoroughly 
done,  is  so  judicially  written,  and  is  so  illuminating,  that  I  hope 
it  will  have  the  widest  circulation." 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF  ' 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made 
4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


SEP  2  9  2004 


DD20   15M  4-02 


266399 


Miinford,   B.R, 

Virginia's  attitude 

vLiZiJrrrl      ol 


CaU  Number: 


M36 
1910 


E534 


266399 


